Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VIII [Archive] - Page 4

GraaEminense

2011-06-15, 04:04 AM

Half-swording with a single-handed sword (or even a long knife) is a very useful technique when fighting without a shield. I do it quite a bit.

When fighting a similarly equipped opponent, it increases your blade presence enough to easily push aside his weapon and move in for grappling or killing. When done aggressively this can be very effective, and it has the benefit of giving you a short-term advantage while cutting short the very risky cut-and-thrust duelling which often ends with both fighters hit. Slightly risky against competent opposition, but not overmuch.

When fighting two-handed weapons of all kinds, including spears, the same applies. In addition (and more importantly!) the increased blade presence helps prevent them pushing through your defences and killing you -two hands beat one hand, so you need to neutralize that advantage. Once you've stopped the attack, push the weapon aside and move to within their effective range.

Against enemies with shields you are at an even more significant disadvantage. However, half-swording gives you the leverage to open the shield and get your point inside his guard. Not easy, but possible.

The main point of half-swording is to increase your blade presence and 'power' at the cost of reach and speed. It's not a 'win' button by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes it's worth it.

As for single edged blades being superior at this... not really. Conceivably you could be more careless when putting your off hand on the back edge, but it's not that big a deal: You generally don't want to block with the edge if you can avoid it, as it increases the risk of weapon damage. You block with the flat of the blade, and so you put your hand on the 'back flat'. The edge does give you a lot more blade presence than the flat, but when half-swording that's unnecessary.

Of course, once you're in close half-swording helps increase the force of your cuts when it's difficult to get momentum for a good strike. I could see this being especially useful with curved blades, but haven't tried this myself.

Yora

2011-06-15, 05:11 AM

If I shot an arrow at a target, that is just far enough away for the arrow to leave the bowstring, would the impact force be higher or lower that a shot over lets say 30 meters?

The laws of physic say higher, but intuition says lower. Intuition is often wrong, but physics also sometimes behave in very unexpected ways. So what is it?

Autolykos

2011-06-15, 06:27 AM

If the arrow just left the bow (or didn't even leave it completely) it might be unstable and not hit the target straight on. This makes the arrow more likely to be deflected, break, or rotate around the point of impact without penetrating much. Arrows actually vibrate quite a lot after leaving the bow (See: Archer's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archers_paradox)), and this could reduce the energy available to penetrate the target (even if total energy is higher). After 5-10m the arrow should have stabilized enough that this isn't an issue anymore, but at even shorter ranges only tests would show how large his effect really is (rotating, vibrating, flying objects with complex aerodynamics are by no ways easy to calculate).

Spiryt

2011-06-15, 12:58 PM

Depends on arrow too, heavy war shafts found here and there were pretty damn thick and stiff beats, so they probably didn't really paradox all that much.

Generally, I would expect arrows forward momentum be greatest at around ~ 10m tops, because arrows decelerate pretty quickly anyway.

If they're stabilizing slowly, it will also inevitably mean faster deceleration - more energy spent on those movements, greater turbulences in air etc.

Can't really support it with data or anything, but at least with my bow experiences impact was getting more violent the closer I went, so that hypothetical range of vibrations must have been low or insignificant.

fusama

2011-06-15, 03:30 PM

Galloglaich

2011-06-15, 04:26 PM

Hellfire attacks from above.. yes it's very effective

Theodoric

2011-06-15, 05:05 PM

Modern weapons question:

My understanding is that the Hellfire missile is an anti-tank weapon. However, I noticed that it has less than 1/6th as large a warhead as the Maverick, which I also understand to be an anti-tank weapon. Can the Hellfire kill a modern tank? If so, why does the Maverick need such a huge (comparitvely speaking) warhead?
The Hellfire is meant purely as an anti-tank weapon. It goes by the shaped charge principle, AKA HEAT. This is a very intersting technique that you should really up on, on Wikipedia or anything. In short, it sends a yet of molten metal straight through armour. This sort of round doesn't have to be big, especially fi it's used to attack tanks from the top. This also makes it very precise.

The Maverick is, however, a more versatile air to ground missile, also usable against ships etc. It can also load high explosives instead of a shaped charge, making it more useful against other types of targets (like ground installations, buildings, etc.). Also has a bigger variety of targeting systems available in the different types.

They're both used for different tasks.

Galloglaich

2011-06-15, 10:14 PM

All anti tank missiles use HEAT warheads, the only exception I can think of are those HVM (hyper velocity) rockets but those are unguided rockets not missiles.

G.

valadil

2011-06-16, 09:06 AM

If the arrow just left the bow (or didn't even leave it completely) it might be unstable and not hit the target straight on.

Seems reasonable. If you've ever attempted to throw an arrow, you'll notice that it flies like a stick very briefly and then straightens out. From my own experimentation (which is really just throwing some arrows around like an idiot), curly vanes (http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/4457/vanes2ld1.jpg) stabilize a lot more quickly than a more standard fletching (http://freespace.virgin.net/neil.morris1/lbowfletch.JPG).

How unstable the arrow is when released depends on your setup. There's a whole lot of bow tuning that goes into modern archery. I have no idea how much of that could apply to period archery, but I think the point I'm getting at is that there will be a sweet spot where the arrow is fully stable and has lost a minimum amount of momentum. That spot is going to vary from bow to bow. I'm going to speculate that it's within 10m, maybe even 5, but that's only based on modern equipment and even then is still just speculation.

Karoht

2011-06-16, 10:55 AM

If anyone here has Netflicks, they got the show 'Weaponology' up there. Great little documentary series on the progression of certain weapon types. However I do find that all the parts I want them to cover in more detail just happen to be the parts they cover in the shortest of time. They also tend to be very general towards certain topics and time periods. Otherwise, still a very cool show, and if you have Neflicks, worth checking out.

PersonMan

2011-06-16, 02:00 PM

Karoht

2011-06-16, 02:16 PM

What sort of tactics would the soldiers of Group B use? Their goal is to break out of Group A's encirclement and escape to a nearby area.

What sort of strategy and tactics would be used by a force that is generally not as well equipped and smaller than another one, but almost always has perfect knowledge of the enemy's positions? What sort of things could the other force do to protect themselves?Hit and run, diversionary tactics. Lots of distractions that are going to force them to turn their attention away or divert resources in some way. That's the first thing that comes to mind.

Secondly, stealth. Lots of it. Sneaky, very very sneaky.

fusilier

2011-06-16, 03:07 PM

Well, this isn't solely about weapons/armor, but I'm fairly certain that it's the best place to ask.

There are two groups, A and B, in an urban environment. Group A is using modern military equipment, but Group B is limited to slightly outdated ones-things that are maybe 10 or 20 years old, and is outnumber about 5:1 by Group A. However, Group B has complete knowledge of the positions of Group A's forces, while Group A knows very little about the forces of Group B. Group A has encircled Group B completely, although it is in a fairly large area.

What sort of tactics would the soldiers of Group B use? Their goal is to break out of Group A's encirclement and escape to a nearby area.

What sort of strategy and tactics would be used by a force that is generally not as well equipped and smaller than another one, but almost always has perfect knowledge of the enemy's positions? What sort of things could the other force do to protect themselves?

If Group B has perfect knowledge of the enemy's positions, why not identify a weak point and attempt a break out through there, concentrating all their forces on that one area? That would give group B local numerical superiority, and group A being spread out may make it difficult for them to move reinforcements to that spot in a timely manner. Also, if Group A's intelligence is as hopeless as it is described, then it may take them too long to realize that Group B is concentrating all of it's forces on one sector. Otherwise a diversionary attack to draw troops away from a particular sector, may be in order.

Just thoughts off the top of my head.

Storm Bringer

2011-06-16, 03:12 PM

Well, this isn't solely about weapons/armor, but I'm fairly certain that it's the best place to ask.

There are two groups, A and B, in an urban environment. Group A is using modern military equipment, but Group B is limited to slightly outdated ones-things that are maybe 10 or 20 years old, and is outnumber about 5:1 by Group A. However, Group B has complete knowledge of the positions of Group A's forces, while Group A knows very little about the forces of Group B. Group A has encircled Group B completely, although it is in a fairly large area.

What sort of tactics would the soldiers of Group B use? Their goal is to break out of Group A's encirclement and escape to a nearby area.

What sort of strategy and tactics would be used by a force that is generally not as well equipped and smaller than another one, but almost always has perfect knowledge of the enemy's positions? What sort of things could the other force do to protect themselves?

hit and run, infiltration, and misdirection. let the Alpha side advance into prepared traps, suffer short, sharp shocks, then melt away before superior firepower can be brought to bear. classic ambushes would be stike the front and rear vehicles in a unit, then pound the now-trapped center ones.

urban envrioments are killers for someone trying to attack. infantry can use buildings to get high, and achieve top-attack angles on tanks that they normally can't. armour finds it's ability to manuver is greatly reduced. tankers get scared in urban enviroments becuase they can't see much at the best of times, and it only takes one man hidden in a building to put a RPG round into their back armour.

for break out, Beta makes a series of attacks in one area to draw the Alpha teams reserves to that area. then, they use that 5-1 superiority to pummel a hole in the direction they want. moving as a solid, controled group, they can use numbers, intel and brains to offset the tech difference, assuming that Alphas Air Force can be kept form bombing them back to the stone age.

fusilier

2011-06-16, 03:27 PM

for break out, Beta makes a series of attacks in one area to draw the Alpha teams reserves to that area. then, they use that 5-1 superiority to pummel a hole in the direction they want. moving as a solid, controled group, they can use numbers, intel and brains to offset the tech difference, assuming that Alphas Air Force can be kept form bombing them back to the stone age.

I think you misread it, Group B is outnumbered 5:1! But as group A has to form a cordon to encircle Group B, and Group B has complete intelligence on Group A's positions, I think that Group B could identify a weak point (or create one with diversionary attacks), and then gain local numerical superiority to break out.

Karoht

2011-06-16, 04:02 PM

hit and run, infiltration, and misdirection. let the Alpha side advance into prepared traps, suffer short, sharp shocks, then melt away before superior firepower can be brought to bear. classic ambushes would be stike the front and rear vehicles in a unit, then pound the now-trapped center ones.

urban envrioments are killers for someone trying to attack. infantry can use buildings to get high, and achieve top-attack angles on tanks that they normally can't. armour finds it's ability to manuver is greatly reduced. tankers get scared in urban enviroments becuase they can't see much at the best of times, and it only takes one man hidden in a building to put a RPG round into their back armour.

for break out, Beta makes a series of attacks in one area to draw the Alpha teams reserves to that area. then, they use that 5-1 superiority to pummel a hole in the direction they want. moving as a solid, controled group, they can use numbers, intel and brains to offset the tech difference, assuming that Alphas Air Force can be kept form bombing them back to the stone age.

Textbook. Awesome.

And yes, urban environments are awesome for hit and run, snipers, ambushes, traps, diversions, etc.

Galloglaich

2011-06-16, 06:59 PM

Yes i agree with Stormbringer with the caveat that Group B is outnumbered; if you already have say 2/5 or 3/5 of Group A bogged down maintaining the perimeter and then draw all their remaining forces into ambushes* / dead end mazes, and then block their escape route so it's hard for them to get out. Realistically they will often stay there shooting at shadows in many cases for hours, well long enough for group B to achieve local superiority at the weakest spot in Group As perimeter (ideally far away from the site of the ambush) and break out.

If you have Group A with 1000 guys maintaining a perimeter, and another 500 stuck in an ambush deep inside the urban area, fore B with only say, 500 guys can hit the weak spot in the perimeter and in that one spot on the circle the Group A forces might only have 100 guys, so group B will outnumber the Group A forces 5 to 1, more than enough for a decisive short term victory (assuming the tech disparity isn't too wide) and sufficient for them to escape, assuming the territory outside of the perimeter provides some cover. This is what I mean by local numeric superiority.

Knowing all about where the other side is and where you are and the lay of the land is really really critical in battle historically. That was the real advantage the Mongols had against almost all of their enemies, they had superb battlefield intelligence and communication, ('c3i') and situational awareness, which allowed them to concentrate their forces where the enemy is weakest; meanwhile the enemy often has a lot of forces in the wrong place and they may fall into a panic as they see their allies being defeated. This way a small force can defeat a much larger force. It was the same with the Romans against a lot of the Barbarian tribes in Europe.

* one of the most diabolical tricks I've heard of in this type of situation by Viet Cong during the Vietnam war and by Partisans in WW II was to trick two units of the more heavily armed / high tech enemy into shooting at each other.

G.

Vknight

2011-06-16, 07:58 PM

I agree.
It's just easier to blast the place to rubble rather then stick it out and take out a group that has teh terrain advantage because your going to lose lots of people or lose period.

B1okHead

2011-06-16, 08:33 PM

Why are curved swords better than straight swords in some situations?

Vknight

2011-06-16, 09:17 PM

This relates an anecdote wherein half-swording is demonstrated to be very useful in a single edged blade. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWvsHorqldM&NR=1&feature=fvwp)

That link gives a good reason especially with a blade that has a dull side. It lets you stay close and not let the opponent swing so they cannot fight back

Xuc Xac

2011-06-16, 09:38 PM

Group A is using modern military equipment, but Group B is limited to slightly outdated ones-things that are maybe 10 or 20 years old

"Modern equipment" and equipment "10 or 20 years old" is pretty much the same thing in most cases.

Galloglaich

2011-06-17, 02:31 PM

fusilier

2011-06-17, 03:43 PM

On the whole Kunstbuchelin question, I ran across another type of book (or genre of books, plural) of some interest and perhaps relevance, the Stadtbuch, which was a sort of journal of a city, in which the legal rulings, land titles, and significant events were recorded. This is the German wiki on it:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbuch&ei=qKr7TeWEI46ftwfLje25Dg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DStadtbuch%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1899%26bi h%3D994%26prmd%3Divns

I can imagine a Guild would have something very similar.

G

If I understand the translation correctly, the Stadtbuch may have even spelled out some of the guild regulations (guilds tended to have a strong relationship with the city government)?

The Kunstbuechlein were not guild created documents; they were printed manuals that in a sense could have been seen as a threat to guild secrets. This was at a time when the classic guild system was starting to break down . . .

I no longer have access to Science and the Secrets of Nature, and when I read it, I was actually looking for different information, so I didn't pay too close attention to the Kunstbuechlein. However, some parts of the book can be seen on google books:

pgs. 121-122 (referring to 16th-century urban Germany, and the rise of the middle class):

The principal cause of this transformation, according to a recent study by Christopher Friedrichs, was the emergence of a new manufacturing system, the Verlagsystem, or putting-out system. Under this system, a Verleger, a merchant who "put out" work, provided artisans with raw materials and a part-wage, the remainder being paid on delivery of the finished product. Even though some craftsmen continued to work independently in their own shops, the Verleger organized and controlled the production process, which often involved several different crafts. As his control over the means of production increased, the Verleger was able to concentrate production into protofactories, or manufactories, hiring relatively unskilled or semiskilled workers as wage laborers.
. . .

The Verlagsystem caused sweeping changes in guild structure and workshop organization. Guild restrictions tightened, making it increasingly difficult for apprentices and journeymen to advance to the rank of master craftsman: "the more economic pressures the craft masters were subjected to from above, the more they tried to defend themselves from further competition by blocking off the admission of new masters from below."(105) Eventually these changes resulted in the disappearance of the artisan as an independent producer. As wealth concentrated in the hands of the merchant entrepreneurs, the political and economic power of the guilds declined.
. . .
Printers were not unaware of these economic and social changes. . . . As "self-made men" eager to prove the power of the printed word, printers optimistically (and perhaps naively) responded to the changing economic currents by producing self-help manuals to enable aspiring craftsmen to learn trade secrets on their own. Although the Kunstbuechlein would nat have been adequate substitutes for a formal apprenticeship, they might have supplemented on-the-job training and served as workshop reference books to novices. Moreover, the new mode of industrial organization brought about by the expansion of the Verlagsystem and by the rise of manufactories required fewer, simpler, but specialized skills -- the type that might be acquired by reading recipes.

Now I need to go back and remember how I got on this subject in the first place. :-)

fusilier

2011-06-17, 04:08 PM

This may indeed be the tromba de fuego that Balbi was referring to, and the translator called a "trump". It looks as though it could be wielded by a single person.

So at another point in Balbi's account of the siege of Malta, a single Turk uses a fire weapon that shoots bullets the size of doves' eggs wounding several soldiers and setting fire to a store of grenades and incendiaries. This description sounds less like a cheirosiphon and more like a (more) fiery version of a fire tube.

The original Spanish is difficult for me to translate, and it is compounded by the fact that the Turk is apparently met with a Christian soldier also wielding some sort of fire weapon. I think the Christian soldier has a "pica de fuego" (fire-pike), and the Turk has a trump, or "el turco con una tròba" -- The turk with a "tròba" (perhaps a misspelling of "tromba?").

I'm very curious about what kind of fire weapons and incendiaries were in use at the time, but it's hard to find good information (most sources seem to be interested in an earlier time-period, and to speculate on what greek-fire was). I suspect that there were a variety of such weapons used during the 16th century, which were either not well recorded or haven't been well studied.

Talakeal

2011-06-17, 07:56 PM

Galloglaich

2011-06-18, 12:28 AM

If I understand the translation correctly, the Stadtbuch may have even spelled out some of the guild regulations (guilds tended to have a strong relationship with the city government)?

The answer to that is very complex, it depends on the specific era and region. Up until the 14th Century the Guilds were only a minor part of the city in just about all of Europe and many were not even chartered by the town. But during the 14th Century there were uprisings of craft-Artisans in most of the major trading towns in Central Europe and in most of them the Guilds either took over the town council or gained partial control, with a few exceptions such as Nuermburg and Mainz where the Archbishop was able to retake control of the city by force in 1462. But most of the German towns you have heard of in Central Europe like Cologne or Bremen or Lubeck had Guild or part-Guild administrations by the mid 15th Century.

The Kunstbuechlein were not guild created documents; they were printed manuals that in a sense could have been seen as a threat to guild secrets. This was at a time when the classic guild system was starting to break down . . .

Of course they are not guild manuals, you missed my point, but a printed manual was not necessarily a threat to the guild either.

I no longer have access to Science and the Secrets of Nature, and when I read it, I was actually looking for different information, so I didn't pay too close attention to the Kunstbuechlein. However, some parts of the book can be seen on google books:

pgs. 121-122 (referring to 16th-century urban Germany, and the rise of the middle class):

That book is a bit confused, though granted this is a very complex subject. There was a well established middle class in Central Europe / the HRE as early as the 13th Century, as well as in Northern Italy and Flanders - basically the urban population was middle class. The phenomenon of the Verlagsystem and the simpler Kaufsystem was part of the parallel economic system in the towns of the so-called 'Bunglers'. They made simple agricultural tools and crude clothing for local consumption by poor rural people, not the type of high-end export products made by the Guilds.

This is what the Guild members called any artisans outside the Guild system. Most medieval cities had multiple municipalities which fell under different versions of Town Law as well as Churches and Abbeys which were immune to municipal authority on their own property, and the latter took advantage of this to break Guild monopolies and the trade monopolies of the merchant 'Patricians'. So long as this went on at a certain scale it wasn't a major problem, because the Guilds had the upper part of the market for the top quality goods, and the 'Bunglers' usually had the lower ends of the market more for local consumption (though there were exceptions and some 'Bungler' shops made fine quality goods). If the suburbs or the Abbeys started 'dumping' cheap imported products on the market the way say China does in the US today, the Guilds and / or the town authorities would intervene and there could be civil unrest or regional wars.

The Guilds were not eager to see the dissemination of Guild secrets to 'Bunglers' needless to say but they eagerly participated in the sale and dissemination of books and pamphlets just like every other industry. Most of the print shops around Europe in the second half of the 15th Century were operated by Guilds. Gutenburg himself was a registered member of the Goldsmiths guild in Strassburg after he was exiled from his hometown of Mainz by the Archbishop when he captured the city in 1462.

The Guilds faced a lot of competition from many different directions but they did not decline to the extent most people believe, in fact they continued in Germany, Switzerland and some other parts of Central Europe right into the 20th Century.

They were suppressed in Germany during WW II but have since revived there and are now once again a significant presence in certain industries. The Carpenters Guild for example is quite strong in Germany. This is one of the reasons this region generally has a good reputation for making high quality goods, to their considerable economic benefit - Guilds are different than trade unions in that they have a strong interest in maintaining the quality of the end product. The Guilds in Central and Northern Europe also did not have the type of cozy relationships that Guilds in the big Western Kingdoms acquired, but instead had to rely on the quality of their work (and the reputation of the individual town, like say, Solingen for steel) which made them remain economically 'healthy'.

Of course all of this was very different in France, in Castille or in England, where there was a strong centralized Kingdom, mostly rural population and no middle class to speak of. The Guilds there had indeed faded into obscurity for the most part by the end of the 16th Century.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-06-18, 12:44 AM

So at another point in Balbi's account of the siege of Malta, a single Turk uses a fire weapon that shoots bullets the size of doves' eggs wounding several soldiers and setting fire to a store of grenades and incendiaries. This description sounds less like a cheirosiphon and more like a (more) fiery version of a fire tube.

The original Spanish is difficult for me to translate, and it is compounded by the fact that the Turk is apparently met with a Christian soldier also wielding some sort of fire weapon. I think the Christian soldier has a "pica de fuego" (fire-pike), and the Turk has a trump, or "el turco con una tròba" -- The turk with a "tròba" (perhaps a misspelling of "tromba?").

I'm very curious about what kind of fire weapons and incendiaries were in use at the time, but it's hard to find good information (most sources seem to be interested in an earlier time-period, and to speculate on what greek-fire was). I suspect that there were a variety of such weapons used during the 16th century, which were either not well recorded or haven't been well studied.

From the name you are probably right it was likely a fire-lance, but it could have also possibly been a grenade launcher.

http://www.togo.dejavuandcompany.com/Trippix/19%20London,%20part%202/02%20British%20Museum.jpg/33%20hand%20mortar.jpg

This has been recorded (I've seen many lists for these kinds of weapons in period records of armories etc.) and studied but it's a rather obscure subject, not that easily accessible outside of academia and certain amateur history buff circles. You can find this stuff much easier than ever before now days though with the internet, JSTOR and tools like google translate.

G.

fusilier

2011-06-19, 01:25 AM

Thanks G. for that detailed response concerning guilds. When I said "rise of the middle class" -- I didn't mean to imply that they were rising from nothing, but that the middle class was expanding during the time. I was aware that the middle class existed previous to the 16th century. I was also aware that they didn't simply disappear, and in Germanic countries some of the traditions are still alive, discussed earlier on this board (if I'm not mistaken a journeyman wearing his traditional clothing gets free bus rides in some places?).

You don't really say anything to refute what is said in the book, but you certainly supply background information and more detail. As you said it is a rather complex subject, and one should remember it is not the subject of the book, which is basically late Renaissance/early Modern scientific works, specifically books of secrets. Also, Eamon provides the name of the person who provided the study, Christopher Friedrichs, stating that it is recent research (mid 1990s I think), and implying that it may be a different and more modern interpretation of the events. But I digress. The background surrounding the Kunstbuechlein is what needed to be explained. Returning to the reason I mentioned the Kunstbuechlein in the first place: it was another form of written work that middle class members of society may be expected to be familiar with, other than the more mundane writing/reading skills needed to deal with the day-to-day operations of a business. This of course applies to the 16th century, and, this probably goes without saying, they were printed in the vernacular.

fusilier

2011-06-19, 01:45 AM

From the name you are probably right it was likely a fire-lance, but it could have also possibly been a grenade launcher.

This has been recorded (I've seen many lists for these kinds of weapons in period records of armories etc.) and studied but it's a rather obscure subject, not that easily accessible outside of academia and certain amateur history buff circles. You can find this stuff much easier than ever before now days though with the internet, JSTOR and tools like google translate.

G.

Grenade launchers did exist around that time, and that's a very nice picture of one. Although, it's pretty clear from the text that Balbi is not referring to a grenade. I do have access to JSTOR, and if you could suggest a particular paper I could look it up, or even a search string as JSTOR is sometimes difficult to search, that would be most helpful.

I think, in the long run, grenades came to replace all these various fireworks and flame throwers (with maybe some incendiaries retained as well). The increasing availability of artillery for defensive work may also have contributed to the demise of more creative "fireworks".

I have finished Balbi's account of the siege of Malta, and couldn't resist checking out Gunpowder and Galleys again to read its chapter on Malta. I've really got a find a copy of that book that won't cost me an arm and a leg. Despite problems with some of the details in his chapter about weapons, Guilmartin tackles the issue with a comprehensive, system oriented study that attempts to avoid looking at the subject, or subjects, through the lens of more modern paradigms. Already, I've found another eyewitness source for the siege (although there's no evidence that it's available in English, and I'm not even sure it was ever printed), and Guilmartin has gone on to explain and defend pre-Vauban siegecraft!

Galloglaich

2011-06-19, 09:51 AM

Galloglaich

2011-06-19, 09:55 AM

I do have access to JSTOR, and if you could suggest a particular paper I could look it up, or even a search string as JSTOR is sometimes difficult to search, that would be most helpful.

I can think of a whole lot of search strings I would use, but if you have JSTOR and are really interested in this it's just a matter of time before you can find a great deal of valuable information, just keep looking.

I'd search for terms like

"early modern Siegecraft", "early gunpowder weapons", "trump", "Ottoman gunpowder weapons", etc.

G.

Eldan

2011-06-20, 06:43 AM

if I'm not mistaken a journeyman wearing his traditional clothing gets free bus rides in some places?).

Confirmed for Switzerland, though I haven't seen this done for anyone but carpenters.

endoperez

2011-06-21, 01:17 PM

I have a quick question if someone has the answer.

Is there a term which applies to all weapons that have a long flexible portion such as whips, chains, flails, meteor hammers, Nunchucks, etc.?

For the life of me I can't think of what to call this category of weapons, any advice?

The Chinese call whips, meteor hammers and rope darts flexible weapons or "soft" weapons. Nunchucks and other flails with short chains or ropes connecting the sticks aren't counted among those though.

Fhaolan

2011-06-21, 04:08 PM

I have a quick question if someone has the answer.

Is there a term which applies to all weapons that have a long flexible portion such as whips, chains, flails, meteor hammers, Nunchucks, etc.?

For the life of me I can't think of what to call this category of weapons, any advice?

I've seen the term 'chain weapons' being used for the category, but in any real official way.

Galloglaich

2011-06-23, 08:40 AM

Re: Malta

http://www.amazon.com/dp/075929934X/ref=pe_113430_20266820_pd_re_dt_t1

fusilier

2011-06-23, 09:51 AM

That book The Great Siege: Malta 1565 is by Ernle Bradford who provided the translation of Balbi's account. I haven't read it, but in his translation of Balbi (The Siege of Malta, 1565), he shows some outdated views on Don Garcia de Toledo's role in sending the relief. More recent historians have reevaluated his conduct (much besmirched by the Knights' historians) and paint him as far more prudent.

The Great Siege: Malta 1565 appears to be a reprint, do you know when the original was published?
---EDIT---
It was published in 1961, before he had translated Balbi's account.

Yora

2011-07-02, 06:00 AM

Knaight

2011-07-02, 06:02 AM

How easily does obsidian break? It was used in knives, arrowheads, and spear tips, and I guess it should do very well when hunting animals or fighting unarmored opponents. But how likely is a knife or spearhead to snap? Is it possible to attack armored opponents without heavy risk of destroying the weapon?

It depends on the armor, but something like plate armor will do a number to obsidian weapons. This doesn't really matter with arrow heads, but spear tips and obsidian "swords" are at a disadvantage. They won't be destroyed instantly upon contact with armor or anything, but repeated hits to steel will break them over time.

Spiryt

2011-07-02, 06:11 AM

Well, watching videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWp5TVCFTxo).....

It's pretty easily worked with antler so it seems to be chipping and decorticate rather easily.

Contact with anything metallic would probably impact it's structure greatly, I guess that complete reorganization of tip would be more probable than breaking, although it certainly depends on shape and internal structure of the piece.

Yora

2011-07-02, 06:11 AM

I wonder how to translate obsidian into 3.5e terms. Bronze causes a -1 to attack and damage as it doesn't get as sharp as steel. Obsidian supposedly is insanely sharp, so a +1 to damage seems like a good start and it should have significantly reduced Hardness compared to steel, maybe as low as 5.
What about attack? Against leather and such, it should do very well, say a +1 bonus. I'm considering a +1 bonus on attack against no or light armor, and a -1 or -2 against medium and heavy armor.

fusilier

2011-07-02, 04:15 PM

I know a flint knapper who has worked with various forms of obsidian. He told me a story about his mentor who needed some sort of surgery on his forehead. He elected to have the surgery performed with an obsidian scalpel instead of a metal one. Why? Because under magnification the metal scalpel's edge appears jagged, but the obsidian edge will still be smooth. The scarring is effectively eliminated.

As a weapon, you typically won't have a single huge piece of obsidian, for various reasons. First it's hard to get a good large "flake" for that use, and second it will probably break too easily. Instead smaller pieces inset in wood would be more common. As already pointed out, obsidian is easily chipped, and in battle, even against lightly armored foes it could quickly lose it's edge. This is one of the reasons a macauhuitl is typically double edged. However, being easily chipped is also a benefit; a couple minutes of rest in a long battle and a rock is all that a warrior needs to put an edge back on his weapon.

As for use against a well armored foe (one armored with metal), shattering the obsidian seems plausible, but, thinking of the design of true weapon like a macauhuitl, there are many small pieces of obsidian, and probably only one would be shattered. Leaving a still useable weapon. Although, I'm inclined to agree with Spiryt -- it's more likely that the edge will be ruined, than a piece being broken. Something like an obsidian dagger (typically not a combat weapon) may be more likely to break, as they are usually just one good sized flake of obsidian, but, on the other hand, I would imagine that they would be used like any other dagger to try to thrust through gaps in the armor.

Against metal armor obsidian weapons were typically at a disadvantage, from what I can remember of Spanish conquest of Mexico. However, I am aware of no actual tests performed. My suspicion is that powerful bows and maybe atlatl launched javelins (or darts) tipped with obsidian may have been able to pierce their armor. The Spanish encounters in Florida and what is today the US Southeast, found their armor vulnerable to the longbows used by the natives. They were probably using flint tips.

Mesoamericans chose obsidian for their weapons. I seem to recall that obsidian actually displaced earlier metal edged weapons (a copper edged "sword" of sorts) in Mesoamerica. Armor worn by Aztecs typically consisted of a padded-cloth vest, and was effective enough that the Spanish often adopted it. Over the vest could be worn a feathered suit. The theory is that the slick feathers might help prevent an edged weapon from getting a good cut, thus making it easier to deflect a blow. Again, I'm not aware of this theory being tested, and I have doubts that it can be tested in an authentic manner (I've never seen a convincing replica feathered suit). A wooden helmet could also be worn, although sometimes the hair was simply gathered on the top of the head in such a way as to provide some minor protection. You have to keep in mind that most Meso-American warfare was about capturing your opponent, rather than killing him. This didn't stop them from fielding archers and atlatl men all together, but made them have a somewhat different emphasis.

Galloglaich

2011-07-03, 12:48 AM

I've seen some documentary footage on youtube where they tested a macuhuitil replica against a pretty cheap sidesword repllica, simulating a parry, and the sidesword broke or knocked out all the obsidian chips on one side.

On the other hand, there are stories of the Seminoles allegedly being able to shoot holes in Spanish armor in the 16th-17th Century, I'm not sure if I believe it though.

G.

fusilier

2011-07-03, 01:52 AM

I've seen some documentary footage on youtube where they tested a macuhuitil replica against a pretty cheap sidesword repllica, simulating a parry, and the sidesword broke or knocked out all the obsidian chips on one side.

Again, how good of a replica was the macauhuitl? Did the sidesword break/knock out all the obsidian chips on one side in a single parry? That seems very unlikely, unless the macauhuitl was very badly made. The fact of the matter was the metal sword was better and the Indios Conquistadores (Conquistadores Indios?), adopted them as quickly as practical. As a result the knowledge of how these things were made seem to have been fairly quickly lost, although the fundamental skills probably carried on independently (i.e. they stopped putting obsidian to wood to make macauhuitl's, but they continued to work with obsidian and wood).

On the other hand, there are stories of the Seminoles allegedly being able to shoot holes in Spanish armor in the 16th-17th Century, I'm not sure if I believe it though.

G.

The source for this is first-person Spanish accounts. Either from Cabeza de Vaca (1520s) or De Soto Expedition (1539/40?), or both. I will have to check when I have the time. It's fairly well attested.

fusilier

2011-07-03, 01:57 AM

Galloglaich-

I caught part of an episode of "Ancient Discoveries" on TV the other day. I think it was entitled "Secrets of the Occult (2009)" -- but I can't be certain. When I tuned in they just happened to be attempting to reconstruct a Trump based on Balbi's description -- they then went on to make fire-hoops! The fire-hoops were probably pretty accurate, as Balbi describes how they were made. But the trump must have involved a fair amount of guesswork and/or inference, as he talks of their use but doesn't really describe them. What they came up with was a kind of fire-tube, with a second chamber that could be ignited separately for firing a collection of bullets. Not bad, but I'm not totally convinced of their ignition methods.

Galloglaich

2011-07-03, 01:48 PM

Cool I'll have to look for that. Maybe I can find it on Hulu or something.

Still haven't gotten around to reading Balbi yet, it's about 3 down on my list but I'm getting closer having finally finished a rather endless series of historical novels. I'm moving much faster through the others in the queue.

G

fusilier

2011-07-04, 02:01 AM

I haven't been able to find any clips of the episode on youtube (update I think the episode was called "secret science of the occult"). :-(

Balbi's account is a good read. There's nothing really conclusive concerning armor, although one person is saved by a "bullet-proof" helmet (and another is lost because he failed to put his helmet on). Guilmartin points out that Balbi wasn't an officer or someone who really understood the system of warfare, and there is another first-person account of the siege (a manuscript in Spanish) that gives better analysis. For example, Balbi claims that the Turks could have just ignored Fort St. Elmo and stormed Birgu and Senglea. But amphibious warfare in the mediterranean didn't work that way -- the fact that Fort St. Elmo would have to be taken first was implicitly understood by both Vallette and Don Garcia.

Galloglaich

2011-07-05, 01:14 PM

Ran into something possibly related to your kunstbucher

Zunftordnung

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunftordnung&ei=JFQTTp2IPM6FsALF89zUDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DZunftordnung%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1920%2 6bih%3D970%26prmd%3Divns

Galloglaich

2011-07-06, 08:46 AM

Spear fighting tournament in Poland from earlier this year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tXleZqS_CU

Yora

2011-07-06, 11:11 AM

Is there a reason so many groups are using red and black sparring clothing?

Raum

2011-07-06, 04:56 PM

Reading the Siege of Malta 1565, Balbi mentions a repulse of an attack on Fort St. Elmo, where the Knights managed to drive the Turks off the cavalier...Thanks for the book recommendation, it's been a very good read so far!

Galloglaich

2011-07-07, 10:27 PM

Is there a reason so many groups are using red and black sparring clothing?

I think that is because some of the Polish groups used to be part of the American group called The ARMA, and their colors are red and black. Most of the Central European fencers tend to dress mostly in black though.

They are quite consciously trying to kind of establish a 'look' which is distinct from both collegiate / olympic style sport fencing (usually all-white) and also from the whole SCA / Re-enactor type scene, which looks sort of quasi-Medieval or Capitol One Barbarian-esque, in a mixture of earth tones...

G.

Karoht

2011-07-08, 10:32 AM

I think that is because some of the Polish groups used to be part of the American group called The ARMA, and their colors are red and black. Most of the Central European fencers tend to dress mostly in black though.

They are quite consciously trying to kind of establish a 'look' which is distinct from both collegiate / olympic style sport fencing (usually all-white) and also from the whole SCA / Re-enactor type scene, which looks sort of quasi-Medieval or Capitol One Barbarian-esque, in a mixture of earth tones...

G.

Capitol One Barbarian-esque? Please explain. I think I understand this term but would like to be sure. Do you have a picture reference?

Fhaolan

2011-07-08, 12:08 PM

Capitol One Barbarian-esque? Please explain. I think I understand this term but would like to be sure. Do you have a picture reference?

Capitol One is a credit card company who had a series of commercials with hollywood-style 'barbarians'. http://www.tvacres.com/admascots_capitalone.htm

They started as a horde of barbarian-types: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqO8aySdFg

But they've gotten progressively sillier over time as they focused on individuals rather than the generic 'horde': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhomaIqoiL0&feature=related

Fortinbras

2011-07-11, 08:46 AM

What tactics would infantry two handed swords and axes not pikes employ against charging lancers.

Was the lochaber axe employed primarily against the horse or man? Would you set it against the charge or try to swing it as the rider passed? What could an axeman do to negate the longer reach of the lance?

What about a longswords man fighting a lancer?

Maclav

2011-07-11, 11:22 AM

Fiore mentions mounted vs foot briefly. He focuses on a ghiavarina (a spear/partisan type weapon). He advises to stand in a low left guard (dente di cinghiaro) step off line and beat the lance aside and to ether strike the head with a cut or thrust or turn the weapon and strike with the iron on the butt. He goes on to suggest that this technique would work equally well with the sword or staff.

What tactics would infantry two handed swords and axes not pikes employ against charging lancers.

Was the lochaber axe employed primarily against the horse or man? Would you set it against the charge or try to swing it as the rider passed? What could an axeman do to negate the longer reach of the lance?

What about a longswords man fighting a lancer?

Spiryt

2011-07-11, 11:35 AM

Generally, obvious suggestion is to grab 458 of other guys and stay tight. :smalltongue:

Then you can hold against whole lot of cavalry.

Sword won't be the best for that purpose, but can work too.

Fighting horseman alone can be tricky at very beast.

Fortinbras

2011-07-11, 12:36 PM

I was talking about fighting in formation.

Autolykos

2011-07-11, 01:46 PM

Like Spiryt hinted at: Just don't rout.
Once the cavalry is bogged down in infantry, no matter what their weapons are, the cavalry will be chopped to pieces.
Breaking the charge is preferable to soaking it (and massively reduces your losses and the chance of your troops routing). While this is done easiest with pikes or powerful missile weapons, using barricades or caltrops would also work.
The second best thing would be to reduce the damage from being charged (by using armor and/or a shield wall). A lance might still penetrate a shield and good armor, but the troops will feel safer and won't rout as easily. Also, troops wearing heavy armor and/or locked in a shield wall can't run away as easily, making them less inclined to do so.
The least preferable option would be to teach the troops a semi-plausible way of defending against the lances with their inadequate equipment and hope they don't notice it until after the charge (or just hope their morale is high enough not to run away).

Fortinbras

2011-07-12, 11:53 AM

according to wikipedia the lochaber could be used like this: Finally, the hook on the back allowed infantry to hook the cavalry off their horses. To accomplish this, as the cavalry charged, the highlanders would suddenly change formation from a large body, into smaller bodies of men with clear channels between them. The horses would naturally go into these channels, and the foot soldiers would hook the cavalry off their horses, then use their axes on them with devastating effect.

any ideas where I could find a more detailed explanation of exactly how this was done?

Galloglaich

2011-07-13, 03:39 PM

The early methods were long spears (schiltron)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheltron

such as the Scots used at Bannck-Burn

or giant two-handed spiked spear / maces, used by Flemish burghers to slaughter the flower of French Chivalry at the Battle of Golden Spurs

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Goedendag_on_chest_of_Kortrijk.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedendag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Golden_Spurs

or giant two-handed flails

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n106/blfulton45/Arms%20and%20Armor/DSC00944.jpg

or giant meat-cleavers with a hook, like the lochaber axe or the volgue / early halberd, or the bill-hook. All of the above are peasant tools adapted for warfare.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Bendicht_Tschachtlan%2C_Die_Schlacht_am_Morgarten_ %28c._1470%29.jpg/220px-Bendicht_Tschachtlan%2C_Die_Schlacht_am_Morgarten_ %28c._1470%29.jpg
Swiss at Morgarten

The three principle techniques during the 13th-14th Century were opening the ranks and clobbering the horse and / or pulling the rider offf, as described in the wiki article on the Schiltron, or ambushing from cover as the Swiss did at Morgarten, or standing behind pits and stakes and relying mostly on archers or crossbows like the English did at Crecy.

Shield walls were used earlier during the migration era really didn't work against lances by the 12th Century when the couched lance had become common, a lance will go right through a shield.

http://home.eckerd.edu/~oberhot/im-grandson8.jpg
By the mid 15th Century the pike had superceeded all the other infantry weapons in Western Europe, combined with smaller numbers of halberds, crossbows, two-handed swords, and early firearms. And rocks. The main difference between the pike and the old Scottish schiltron as the uniformity of the length of the weapon and (especially) the training / drill of the mostly militia troops who used them.

http://img5.rajce.idnes.cz/d0504/2/2731/2731342_b8903fe885531ca580c6d1533f6aacd0/images/Husyci_Michalek1a.jpg
In Eastern / Central Europe, the main method to deal with Knights (and also, incidentally, with equal efficiency against Horse archers of the Mongols and the Turks) which is a war wagon manned by gunners, crossbowmen (and women) and heavy infantry with two-handed flegels (flails) pikes, and halberds. And rocks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Taborkozacki.jpg

http://nd04.jxs.cz/055/492/a927eae4ac_73668464_o2.jpg
http://nd04.jxs.cz/804/182/6a2f5b690e_73668281_o2.jpg

Both the pike squares and the tabor were capable of offensive as well as defensive action, though in the early days it required very well trained / motivated troops for them to be effective; Swiss in the West, and later Landsknechts and after that the Spanish Tercio, and Bohemians in the East, later Cossacks, and eventually the Muscovites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot

Later they developed pike and shot tactics which they worked out how to train to conscripts and in an increasingly short period of time. And then the vast armies and apocalyptic wars of the modern age were on their way.

G.

Flame of Anor

2011-07-13, 05:56 PM

What's the difference between a guisarme and a bill? They both look like hooks on sticks, as far as I can tell.

Galloglaich

2011-07-13, 08:23 PM

Old e. Gary Gygax did a great article breaking down all the different types of Polearms back in the 80's I think, but I can't find it online right now... maybe someone else knows where it is hiding?

My understanding is that the bill itself is the agricultural tool, a bill-guisarme is the weapon most people think of, a spear with a curvy blade and a nice bill-hook. Then there is also the guisarme-volgue (a meat cleaver on a stick with a nice little back-hook) and the glaive-guisarme which is a sort of big scythe or knife on a stick with a nice back-hook.

I'm not sure actually what guisarme by itself means, in spite of having written a couple of books on pre-industrial weapons. :smalleek:

G.

Matthew

2011-07-13, 09:04 PM

Basically, not much. For what it is worth, here is the text of the article with regards to the guisarme and bill as it appeared in Unearthed Arcana (originally the article appeared in Dragon, and this later edition is slightly different):

GUISARME

Medieval peasants discovered that their pruning hooks made reasonably effective pole arms. The provocation which necessitated such development was undoubtedly considerable, but the upshot was likely to have been as unsatisfactory as having no weapons. Pole arms of this sort, called guisarmes, were soon modified into highly efficient combination weapons. This class includes most couteaux de breche, although some identified as such are glaive-guisarmes.

The guisarme was furnished with a sharp cutting edge along its convex side, probably from reverse spike to hook. The spike, of course, could be used to penetrate armour when the weapon was swung, and the curved hook provided an ample means of pulling horsemen to the ground. Deficiencies in this form of pole arm are apparent ‒ no spear point for thrusting and only one projection for penetrating. The guisarme was soon combined with other forms of peasant weapons to make a second generation of highly effective, all-purpose pole arms.

BILL HOOK

The English bill hook was almost exactly the same as the French guisarme, but its concave (hook) edge was the sharp one, and rather than a straight back spike it typically had an L-shaped tine projecting forward. This arrangement was slightly more effective than the European guisarme.

These are interesting distinctions, but in all probability not universally in evidence across all extant English "bills" and French "guisarmes".

Flame of Anor

2011-07-13, 10:59 PM

Ah, okay! So the guisarme is sharp on the outside, and the bill on the inside? So then if it has a point it would be a bill-glaive? That doesn't sound right, I've never heard of one of those. It seems that by this definition of guisarme, adding a glaive point would just mess up that nice convex edge. So what would a glaive-guisarme be, anyway?

Matthew

2011-07-13, 11:05 PM

Warclam

2011-07-14, 08:54 PM

To what degree do the various spiked whatnots in D&D reflect actual weapons? Spiked gauntlets I can see and I guess shields, but spiked armour seems like an iffy proposition.

Flame of Anor

2011-07-14, 09:25 PM

To what degree do the various spiked whatnots in D&D reflect actual weapons? Spiked gauntlets I can see and I guess shields, but spiked armour seems like an iffy proposition.

Spikes make grappling a dubious prospect, which is moderately useful, but then a man in armor is much more likely to be hit by a weapon than a wrestler; in that case, spikes merely impede the armor's deflective properties--a weapon that otherwise would have glanced off might catch on a spike and penetrate, or at least knock him over. This, combined with the fact that I've never actually seen a historical suit of armor which has spikes, makes me think that it was fairly unusual. It's prevalent enough in fantasy now that it seems likely to have some historical basis, though.

Fhaolan

2011-07-15, 12:40 AM

To what degree do the various spiked whatnots in D&D reflect actual weapons? Spiked gauntlets I can see and I guess shields, but spiked armour seems like an iffy proposition.

Spiked bucklers and smaller shields, sure. Spiked gauntlets.... I'm only aware of gladitorial-style spiked gauntlets. Helms with a single spike straight occur on a regular basis, but the spike isn't offensive. It's decorative or is a mounting point for decorations.

I have seen actual historical spiked armour. Unfortuantely it was is called a 'Grotesque', which means it was primarily parade armour and never saw combat.

For spiked weapons, it depends on what you are willing to admit into the classification. Spiked maces and flails were common. Weapons with hand-guards that had spikes were unusual but not impossible. Spikes on poleweapons that backed up axe blades or hammers or the like were expected, and a spike on the butt of a weapon was pretty normal. And there are always the odd martial-arts weapons where they stuck spikes in weird places.

endoperez

2011-07-15, 02:50 AM

Dueling shields were two-handed shields with various spikes coming off of them. They were only used in judicial duels, but could have inspired spiked shields in fantasy games or art.
http://www.mercwars.com/othershields.shtml

Maclav

2011-07-15, 07:56 AM

To what degree do the various spiked whatnots in D&D reflect actual weapons? Spiked gauntlets I can see and I guess shields, but spiked armour seems like an iffy proposition.

Spikes on armour make fantastic hand holds. Especially the helmet. Double plus good if he has chinstrap. Best fight ever and dood learned that a) holywood crap doesn't really work and b) the body goes where the head does.

The spikes would be largely useless against someone else in armour anyway and complete overkill vs an unarmoured opponent. You don't need spikes to shred a guy in clothes. Armour alone is plenty weapon enough.

Galloglaich

2011-07-15, 10:42 AM

Warclam

2011-07-15, 01:18 PM

Thanks all for your replies. Always nice to have one's suspicions confirmed.

Spiked armor is yet another RPG absurdity, like double swords and "Urgosh" and the various Klingon weapons.

That's another thing I've been wondering about, actually. Do any of the double weapons make any kind of sense? Double axes and such are obvious nonsense, but can quarterstaves or any others actually be used in an attack-with-each-hand manner?

Yukitsu

2011-07-15, 01:26 PM

That's another thing I've been wondering about, actually. Do any of the double weapons make any kind of sense? Double axes and such are obvious nonsense, but can quarterstaves or any others actually be used in an attack-with-each-hand manner?

Sort of. You don't really attack any faster trying to strike with say, both ends of a staff, but it gives you options and additional angles to block or strike from, or an additional weapon if your primary offensive side is destroyed somehow.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2011-07-15, 01:45 PM

In that sense, the 4e rules for two-weapon fighting make more sense than the 3.5 rules.

Maclav

2011-07-15, 02:39 PM

That's another thing I've been wondering about, actually. Do any of the double weapons make any kind of sense? Double axes and such are obvious nonsense, but can quarterstaves or any others actually be used in an attack-with-each-hand manner?

In fact, most weapon would have been "double weapons." Just not the way D&D portrays them. Sharpened quilions, pommel strikes, butt spikes on pole weapons, spears, hammers and maces, etc.

Fhaolan

2011-07-15, 02:41 PM

That's another thing I've been wondering about, actually. Do any of the double weapons make any kind of sense? Double axes and such are obvious nonsense, but can quarterstaves or any others actually be used in an attack-with-each-hand manner?

This is one of those where the D&D abstraction of combat can be confusing.

As Yukitsu said, using a staff, short poleweapon, greatswords, etc. as a 'two-ended weapon' doesn't increase the speed of attack, however if you know the right techniques it can provide more opportunites to make attacks (and defenses).

In older forms of D&D, each melee 'attack' represented an opportunity rather than an actual strike. In low levels you may be striking many times, but would only get a real opportunity once per round. That opportunity is where you would make your attack roll.

This abstraction sorta went sideways however when tracking ammunition came into play. For attacks with ammo, each attack *was* a strike, and all the abstraction for regular combat goes out the window.

From that point on, confusion reigned and we ended up with nonsense like double swords somehow being physically faster than a regular sword.

Autolykos

2011-07-18, 06:53 AM

This starts making sense again when you assume someone would only attack at a good opportunity when he has limited ammunition (to prevent wasting his resources).

Caustic Soda

2011-07-18, 09:14 AM

Spiryt

2011-07-18, 09:24 AM

Lapak

2011-07-18, 09:30 AM

HenryHankovitch

2011-07-18, 11:06 AM

Spiked armor is yet another RPG absurdity, like double swords and "Urgosh" and the various Klingon weapons. It did not exist as actual combat armor in Europe or Central Asia or Japan. You really don't want your inflexible iron clothing to get stuck on things as you are moving around.

But there is always an exception. I did once see some pretty ridiculous looking spiked armor on a guy from Fiji or somewhere. I don't think it was metal though it looked like wood or something.

G.

I could maybe see it being an adaptation more useful to fantasy-world adventurers than real-world soldiers, inasmuch as they're just as likely to run into monsters that are going to try to bite/constrict/devour/engulf as they are to run into a bandit with a spear.

Fhaolan

2011-07-18, 04:18 PM

I could maybe see it being an adaptation more useful to fantasy-world adventurers than real-world soldiers, inasmuch as they're just as likely to run into monsters that are going to try to bite/constrict/devour/engulf as they are to run into a bandit with a spear.

Actually, this is a valid point. Many animals have evolved spikes all over as a defensive measure against much larger predatory animals. In a world where there are lots of creatures that are big enough to do this kind of things to people, and have people in their territorial range, might inspire such stuff.

Matthew

2011-07-18, 04:46 PM

Well, that is how young Lord Lambton defeated the Lambton Worm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambton_Worm). "Whisht! lads, haad yor gobs, An' aa'll tell ye aall an aaful story, Whisht! lads, haad yor gobs, An' Aa'll tel ye 'boot the worm!"

fusilier

2011-07-18, 05:59 PM

Seb Wiers

2011-07-18, 08:44 PM

I was wondering, would a sword-club like the macahuitl be feasible if the obsidian was replaced by flint or some other stone material?

Can be, and probably were (from what I've read). Flint is pretty much the same as obsidian, when it comes to blade properties. Good flint isn't any easier to get than obsidian; the aztecs probably just had better supplies of obsidian.

Flame of Anor

2011-07-19, 11:03 AM

My understanding is that flint and obsidian are basically interchangeable. They are worked by the same methods, however, I think obsidian is generally considered superior to flint in most applications. Just like there are different kinds of flint, there are also different kinds of obsidian with varying properties.

Also, obsidian is effective against the White Walkers... :smallbiggrin:

gkathellar

2011-07-19, 12:46 PM

I was wondering, would a sword-club like the macahuitl be feasible if the obsidian was replaced by flint or some other stone material? Or would the differences between the glass and stone make the weapon less effective than a comparable club? Wiki talks about something called a 'macana' which is supposedly a wooden sword, but it does not go into detail, so I have no idea if that is what is meant, or if the source is credible.

Obsidian is really, really sharp. Glass in general has a sharper edge than rock or metal is capable of possessing. You can cut someone up with flint or shark-teeth or whatever, but the nature of the edge is going to make your strikes a lot more bludgeon-y. You hit someone with a glass knife/spear/sharp doohickey? It's going to slide through all their soft bits with little significant resistance.

That's another thing I've been wondering about, actually. Do any of the double weapons make any kind of sense? Double axes and such are obvious nonsense, but can quarterstaves or any others actually be used in an attack-with-each-hand manner?

A lot of Japanese martial arts use the staff, and in some cases polearms, as a double-ended weapon. Because most of the force for a staff strike (as opposed to a thrust) comes from rotation around the axis form by the hands, a fair number of staff-fighting techniques place the hands roughly equidistant from the center of the shaft and place the point of rotation at the exact center.

This gives you more angles to strike from and slightly faster strikes, but it also reduces your reach, weakens your thrusts and makes them a little more awkward. Arguably, it also reduces the power of each strike and puts you in a bad defensive position. Still, when done well that back end of the staff can easily blindside an opponent (and with a bladed polearm, where the opponent is focusing on the sharp shiny thing, it can stun or injure the opponent, giving an opening to finish them off).

Hawkfrost000

2011-07-19, 05:25 PM

Also, obsidian is effective against the White Walkers... :smallbiggrin:

Oooooooooooh so that's why...

I'm halfway through a clash of kings and I was wondering why Jon was finding all that obsidian.

DM

Matthew

2011-07-19, 09:39 PM

Xuc Xac

2011-07-20, 05:41 AM

A lot of Japanese martial arts use the staff, and in some cases polearms, as a double-ended weapon.

That's true for martial arts from every country (including the ones in Europe).

gkathellar

2011-07-20, 06:11 AM

That's true for martial arts from every country (including the ones in Europe).

Is it? I know you're at least partially correct (I mentioned the Japanese specifically because it's pretty much universal for them), though a fair number of continental Asian styles use the staff more like a spear.

I can't really ID much about reconstructed European martial arts, though. My understanding was that classical European staff-fighting was more like that second setup, using the full length of the staff, but my knowledge is pretty limited in that area. Care to clarify?

Yora

2011-07-20, 06:20 AM

Here is an interesting news story: Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14204717). Good to know this sort of serious research is going on, but as usual we see a very "History Channel" approach to its reporting.

At least they used people who wear armor at reenactments to make their tests on, but I think a soldier who trained regularly in armor probably would perform a lot better.

Maclav

2011-07-20, 07:45 AM

The team found that walking and running with the armour used up twice as much energy as doing the same thing without any armour.

No ****? Its harder and takes more energy to move around in 60+lb of steel... really?

The breast and back plates of the medieval armour also affected breathing

It mustn't have fit very well. My armour doesn't hinder my breathing (visor up of course) and have no problem taking deep, full breaths. Visor down does limit air flow, but that just makes deep breaths even more important.

I find it very interesting that they say the legs were the "expensive" part because I find my leg harness doesn't hinder me much at all.

Altair_the_Vexed

2011-07-20, 08:22 AM

Galloglaich

2011-07-20, 09:01 AM

I think this study is better than it's getting credit for.

What's not clear from most of the coverage of the investigation is that the volunteers in the armour were well-used to using it - so the "better training" argument loses a little credibility - and that the investigators compared the use of armour to similar amount of weight more favourably distributed, say as a weighted harness without leg protection.

Which is, not coincidentally, how infantry wore armor ... the article neglected to mention that full cap-a-pied harness was primarily used by horsemen. Though it is a legitimate point about Agincourt (and some other similar battles) where the heavy cavalry dismounted to fight.

I also think even the probably pretty good replica armor from Royal Armouries is quite a bit heavier, from the weights they quoted, and not nearly as well fitting as anything approaching the real thing.

Even more than formal clothes, armor has to be personally fitted to the wearer. When you are talking about authentic 15th century harness, it's tempered steel, very thin. There are not very many smiths around today who can even make it. I've only seen a handful of harnesses of that quality custom fit, I do remember a video that was made of a guy sprinting in some which was pretty impressive. A harness like that can cost more than ten thousand dollars.

Most of the harness you see re-enactors using, even at the high end, (and in the price range of more like two or three thousand dollars) is thicker steel of less quality (not tempered, usually mild steel) and therefore heavier, and it's typically only a rough correlation to the size of the purchaser. They will usually send in a few measurements obviously or they couldn't even put it on, but the fit is nowhere near as precise as you really need it to be with a rigid steel exoskeleton.

So they fit half as well and weight twice as much, in other words, as the real thing.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-07-20, 09:14 AM

Some more commentary on the test, including a bit of an inside scoop from Jonathan Waller who is associated with the Royal Armouries who provided the armor and the people who did the test

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17362

G.

Matthew

2011-07-20, 09:39 AM

So far I am not seeing anything too shocking in the results, though obviously the extrapolation of this tiny data set to "cause of defeat at Agincourt" is ridiculously typical of this sort of thing. I am liking this "double energy" stuff in its implications for the 12"/6" movement rates in AD&D, but that is just a bit of fun. :smallbiggrin:

LansXero

2011-07-20, 09:46 AM

Yora

2011-07-20, 09:52 AM

Stumbled upon a german article about the armor test: Apparently the test subjects weight 79kg on average and wore armor of 30 to 50 kg.
Compared to claims about actual armor, that's about twice the weight.

Galloglaich

2011-07-20, 11:32 AM

Yep... that's what I was thinking.

Matthew

2011-07-20, 12:09 PM

I suspect that there is a lot of misinformation about these tests running around at the moment. According to the poster Galloglaich linked earlier, who had access to the paper, the weight of the armour tested was principally about 30-40 kg (60-80 lbs), that seems reasonable to me. If they were testing armour of 50 kg (or 100 lbs) that seems quite excessive, but interesting that even that weight of gear was not a disaster. :smallbiggrin:

gkathellar

2011-07-20, 12:17 PM

Still, the lack personalized fitting is a big deal. Good armor is like a second skin — it's heavy, but the weight is distributed relatively evenly, and it's got space in the right places and a tight fit where it's necessary.

Matthew

2011-07-20, 12:20 PM

Yora

2011-07-20, 12:52 PM

I assume the testers did have quite a good idea of what they were doing and what they were actually trying to test or prove.
I also assume, that non of the people who wrote the articles did. :smallamused:

Galloglaich

2011-07-20, 01:23 PM

Again, according to the second hand citing of the article, all of the armour tested was custom made for the test subjects. The specifics of that are not elaborated on, but I would guess it means they tried to ensure the test was fair in that respect.

"Custom made" can cover a pretty wide range, I wouldn't be so sure about that, but I'll try to find out.

Also given the published weight of the armor I'm pretty sure it was not tempered steel, which for the 15th century would be fairly common (though perhaps not as early as Agincourt).

G.

Flame of Anor

2011-07-20, 01:57 PM

It mustn't have fit very well. My armour doesn't hinder my breathing (visor up of course) and have no problem taking deep, full breaths. Visor down does limit air flow, but that just makes deep breaths even more important.

What I'm accustomed to wearing could hardly be called full plate, but even with iron breastplates I've never had breathing trouble. Not that I've been running in it, though.

Which is, not coincidentally, how infantry wore armor ... the article neglected to mention that full cap-a-pied harness was primarily used by horsemen. Though it is a legitimate point about Agincourt (and some other similar battles) where the heavy cavalry dismounted to fight.

...

So they fit half as well and weight twice as much, in other words, as the real thing.

G.

Good point.

Also, everyone on this thread should watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCvOC2VwDc) and then see what they think about armor on someone who's really good at using it.

Fhaolan

2011-07-20, 02:01 PM

Yeah, I have a 'custome made' reporoduction 15th century Italian white harness.

And yet I can't bring my hands together in front of me, or lift my hand up high enough to lift my own visor, and it weighs approximately half again what an actual historical suit would. Which is why the amour sits decoratively on a stand in the corner now.

Getting a 'real' repro full harness that actually fits properly, is tempered properly, etc? That runs anywhere from $50,000 US or more last time I was looking, and there's only about three people in the world currently doing it with about three-five years backlog each.

Matthew

2011-07-20, 02:27 PM

Also, everyone on this thread should watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCvOC2VwDc) and then see what they think about armor on someone who's really good at using it.

Cool video.

Yeah, I have a 'custome made' reporoduction 15th century Italian white harness.

And yet I can't bring my hands together in front of me, or lift my hand up high enough to lift my own visor, and it weighs approximately half again what an actual historical suit would. Which is why the amour sits decoratively on a stand in the corner now.

Getting a 'real' repro full harness that actually fits properly, is tempered properly, etc? That runs anywhere from $50,000 US or more last time I was looking, and there's only about three people in the world currently doing it with about three-five years backlog each.

Very true. As I say, the specifics are still up in the air, but if we are talking reproduction armour for Royal Armoury employees, then there is at least the possibility that it is reasonable. I look forward to seeing what Galloglaich manages to find out.

Galloglaich

2011-07-20, 09:45 PM

The kit they used is probably similar to what is in that (pretty good) French video posted upthread, probably middle range of "custom" armor, (as in the few thousand $$$ range), fitting well enough to clap your hands together and hold your arms above your head, but not truly custom fit to every contour of your body like period armor would be*.

This is not the really truly tailored custom spring steel harness such as French nobles (and Enlgish nobles) would have in the 15th Century. It's about halfway between say, SCA armor and the real thing.

I found the video I was looking for, you may just want this to load for a while, it's a long speech. Worth watching if you have the time, it's an excellent presentation which corrects quite a few of the many gross misconceptions about armor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

If you fast forward to photo of the armor at 34:44 and video of the guy running in the armor at 35:13. You'll see someone in armor approaching the quality of period medieval kit of close to the higher if not exactly the top quality. At least it's in the ballpark. Notice the guy running in the armor, how much 'leaner' the guy looks, because all the pieces aren't sticking out, the joints don't look oversized and so on the way replica armor usually looks. The blue color is from the temper in the steel though that could either be buffed out to white or blackened or 'bronzed' to a kind of brownish color.

Notice the Guild members at 7:43 I'm trying to get a hold of a photo of that stained glass, there is a copy of of it in an old document somewhere.

G.

* of course there was also munitions grade armor which was more 'off the rack' like a lot of modern reproduction armor is, but very few knights would wear anything that marginal.

Mike_G

2011-07-21, 08:09 AM

I think the overall conclusions of the armor test are more accurate than people are giving credit for.

The leg armor probably was the most expensive, in terms of energy. In the Marines, if you had to run, the first thing you'd be happy to trade is your boots for sneakers. Lifting a heavy weight on the end of your leg each step burns energy. As was said, leg armor was one of the first things infantry discarded.

Don't look at the ability to do cartwheels in full plate. Look at the cost of marching and maneuvering for a day in it. Walk a battlefield. Here in the US, that generally means more modern ones, but walk the route of Picketts Charge and imaging doing in in a wool jacket carrying a ten pound rifle in July and it's pretty daunting. I wouldn't want to walk it in cap a pie plate. (Yes I know we're talking a different era, but I live a long way from Agincourt or Bannockburn.

As far as using twice the energy in full armor versus unarmoed, that seems pretty dead on. I'm not saying armor prevent you from moving or running or fighting, or if you fell, you couldn't get up. But at the end of the day, I don't doubt for a heartbeat that a man who marched and ran and fought in full harness used twice the oxygen of a man who did the same in a t-shirt and shorts.

Of course, the guy in armor would be tired and alive and the other guy would be rested and dead.

Armor is a trade off, used when it was a good trade, and abandonned when it ceased to be one.

Eldan

2011-07-21, 08:10 AM

Also, everyone on this thread should watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCvOC2VwDc) and then see what they think about armor on someone who's really good at using it.

I noticed that in this video, his, uhm, lower back area, was basically unprotected, except for the chainmail hanging down over it. Is it supposed to be like that? I mean, it's not an area that's easy to attack, I'd imagine, especially if he's mounted, but it still seems to be a weak point.

Maclav

2011-07-21, 08:23 AM

Spiryt

2011-07-21, 08:37 AM

I noticed that in this video, his, uhm, lower back area, was basically unprotected, except for the chainmail hanging down over it. Is it supposed to be like that? I mean, it's not an area that's easy to attack, I'd imagine, especially if he's mounted, but it still seems to be a weak point.

Yes, this is pretty standard feature of most 'matured' armors of 15th and 16th century.

One has to remember that guys wearing something like that would really be mounted in 90% of cases.

And even on feet, it was not really easy to armor that part properly.

And, anyway, mail hanging down over it is not even close to "unprotected". In fact it would be still great protection in most cases.

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/result.t1.collection_lightbox.$TspTitleImageLink.l ink&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=1&sp=2&sp=Slightbox_3x4&sp=96&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=102

Still, armor intended for purely infantry use often had many weird patents like

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2201

That one, but they didn't really seem to kick in that much.

As far as tiring armor goes..... Well, no feces, :smalltongue: doing tiring stuff with bulkier clothes can quickly be painful, as well as riding bicycle with few beers in backpack.

Fighting around in full mail would have been exhausting, there's no really big surprise here.

This is actually main sensible "armor check penalty", instead of weird stuff they do in RPG-s, but since in most of them human (elf, whateva) gas tank is anyway pretty much not taken into account, it cannot work obviously.

Xuc Xac

2011-07-21, 08:42 AM

Is it? I know you're at least partially correct (I mentioned the Japanese specifically because it's pretty much universal for them), though a fair number of continental Asian styles use the staff more like a spear.

That's true, but have you seen how they use a spear? They thrust. They slash with the tip. They swing either end like a blunt object. They strike with the center of the shaft. It's not just for thrusting.

Limiting a weapon to one particular method of striking is for sports like fencing, not real fighting. If you look through this huge thread, you can see plenty of old European fighting manuals that show how to use the blunt end of a halberd; or how to turn a sword around to strike with the hilt like a hammer with a really sharp handle.

Galloglaich

2011-07-21, 10:37 AM

Matthew

2011-07-21, 12:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

Notice the Guild members at 7:43 I'm trying to get a hold of a photo of that stained glass, there is a copy of of it in an old document somewhere.

If I am looking at the right thing, that image appears also on page fourteen of German Medieval Armies 1300-1500 (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/9780850456141), published by Osprey.

gkathellar

2011-07-21, 01:00 PM

That's true, but have you seen how they use a spear? They thrust. They slash with the tip. They swing either end like a blunt object. They strike with the center of the shaft. It's not just for thrusting.

Limiting a weapon to one particular method of striking is for sports like fencing, not real fighting.

Speaking as someone who trains in staff/spear, I'll maintain that this depends on the style of fighting in question. Hung Gar spear looks very different from Bagua spear which looks very different from Taiji spear. In many cases it's not a question of "limiting your methods of striking," and more a question of what kinds of striking techniques make sense for that particular style's principles. I would never hold the spear at it's center because you give up reach, thrusting ability, power generation and the ability to "fence" with the tip, but I know plenty of people who trained differently and do things I find weird and uncomfortable.

If you look through this huge thread, you can see plenty of old European fighting manuals that show how to use the blunt end of a halberd; or how to turn a sword around to strike with the hilt like a hammer with a really sharp handle.

In European Martial arts both ends of all weapons are used, including spers, staves and swords. In European staff fighting, as in most polearm fighting around the world, the staff is used for thrusting at first, to take advantage of the range, and held in a 'quarter staff' grip, holding the rear quarter. When combat moves to closer range as it almost inevitably does, the weapon is used in a "half staff" grip and both ends are used for striking.

Cool. I've seen a fair amount of European sword-fighting stuff, but haven't had much contact with their approach to other weapons.

What I was referring to were the absurd, tragicomic DnD weapons like the 'double sword' and the urgosh and etc.

Right. I think the closest thing you'll find to that is hard-style three section staff. Anything more would be really stupid.

WarKitty

2011-07-21, 01:13 PM

So I'm sure this has come up before, but are there any real-world weapons that would be the rough equivalent of the spiked chain?

gkathellar

2011-07-21, 01:22 PM

So I'm sure this has come up before, but are there any real-world weapons that would be the rough equivalent of the spiked chain?

Manriki-gusari (Japan), seven/nine section whip (China), urumi (India). If we're counting "chains with sharp/heavy things on the ends," a whole bunch more from all of those cultures and from Europe.

Bear in mind that using any of these gives you pretty good odds of injuring yourself, but that you also need specific knowledge to reliably defend against any of them.

WarKitty

2011-07-21, 03:24 PM

Manriki-gusari (Japan), seven/nine section whip (China), urumi (India). If we're counting "chains with sharp/heavy things on the ends," a whole bunch more from all of those cultures and from Europe.

Bear in mind that using any of these gives you pretty good odds of injuring yourself, but that you also need specific knowledge to reliably defend against any of them.

I'm actually trying to fluff something as "street thug weapon." Something a little less fancy and more of a chain with nails or whatever else you can do. Was wondering if there was a good real-world analog.

Spiryt

2011-07-21, 03:37 PM

I'm actually trying to fluff something as "street thug weapon." Something a little less fancy and more of a chain with nails or whatever else you can do. Was wondering if there was a good real-world analog.

As far as "street thug" goes, hard to go wrong with clubs, knives, daggers, quarterstaves, messers and all kind of that deal....

Any sort of flexible weapon will tend to have a good deal of "fanciness" about it, unless we're talking ordinary chain used to harm thy neighbour would probably count as an improvised weapon.

WarKitty

2011-07-21, 03:43 PM

As far as "street thug" goes, hard to go wrong with clubs, knives, daggers, quarterstaves, messers and all kind of that deal....

Any sort of flexible weapon will tend to have a good deal of "fanciness" about it, unless we're talking ordinary chain used to harm thy neighbour would probably count as an improvised weapon.

Wrong sense of the word "fancy." I meant more in the sense of fancy looks than fancy use. I've got a set-up where it's perfectly possible for said street thug to be highly trained. It's more the typical medieval setting where a commoner could be executed on sight for carrying a sword or spear or other recognizable weapon. So you have a whole parallel fighting culture around weaponry improvised from common items - kind of like the scythe developed from farming tools, only in a more urban setting.

Galloglaich

2011-07-21, 04:15 PM

If I am looking at the right thing, that image appears also on page fourteen of German Medieval Armies 1300-1500 (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/9780850456141), published by Osprey.

Yeah thats the one but I can't use Osprey's photo, have to find their source which they didn't list as far as I could determine.

i need to go there and take a photo of the stained glass myself, I love Strassbourg.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-07-21, 04:22 PM

It's more the typical medieval setting where a commoner could be executed on sight for carrying a sword or spear or other recognizable weapon.

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but in a Medieval European setting that would be almost unheard of. All urban citizens were armed by law, they had to swear an oath to maintain their armor and weapons. Country people were also armed though in some cases they may be restricted from carrying certain prestige weapons by sumptuary laws, they tended to get around those rules (and the penalty for violating it was a fine not execution). For example in certain prts of medieval Germany there was in fact a rule against serfs carrying swords, but the legal definition of a sword was that it was a two edged weapon with a pommel so they just carried "knives", which they were allowed to carry by law, which got longer and longer. Until they ended up like this

http://pics.myarmoury.com/messer_kit01_s.jpg

"Surely herr jaegermeister you don't mind my little knife, it's only for cutting my bratwurst unt spreading the butter!"

Even very poor peasants tended to go around armed, as you see in this famous Durer drawing

http://www.albrecht-durer.org/Three-Peasants-In-Conversation.jpg

It may be a silly obsession with me but I find the reality of Medieval Europe far more interesting and 'cinematic' than any fake pseudo medieval fantasy world yet invented. YMMV.

G.

WarKitty

2011-07-21, 04:27 PM

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but in a Medieval European setting that would be almost unheard of. All urban citizens were armed by law, they had to swear an oath to maintain their armor and weapons. Country people were also armed though in some cases they may be restricted from carrying certain prestige weapons by sumptuary laws, they tended to get around those rules (and the penalty for violating it was a fine not execution). For example in certain prts of medieval Germany there was in fact a rule against serfs carrying swords, but the legal definition of a sword was that it was a two edged weapon with a pommel so they just carried "knives", which they were allowed to carry by law, which got longer and longer. Until they ended up like this

[img]http://pics.myarmoury.com/messer_kit01_s.jpg[/jpg]

"Surely herr jaegermeister you don't mind my little knife, it's only for cutting my bratwurst unt spreading the butter!"

It may be a silly obsession with me but I find the reality of Medieval Europe far more interesting and 'cinematic' than any fake pseudo medieval fantasy world yet invented. YMMV.

G.

Interesting. Would you happen to have sources on this? I was actually stealing more from feudal japan than feudal europe in the idea (hey I just needed a background). Though the particular character has other reasons as well to not wish to appear armed.

Matthew

2011-07-21, 04:29 PM

Interesting. Would you happen to have sources on this? I was actually stealing more from feudal japan than feudal europe in the idea (hey I just needed a background). Though the particular character has other reasons as well to not wish to appear armed.

Even in feudal Japan it was not necessarily forbidden to carry swords, just not swords that would otherwise mark you out as a samurai, and of course that was in a much more formal and peaceful period.

Spiryt

2011-07-21, 04:30 PM

Indeed, that's not typical at all to say at least, to any kind of "medieval setting"...

In some places at some times weapons were restricted and controlled (William the Great hard regime....) but not really prohibited at all, even there.

In many places in East Asia, however, this indeed could be the case in some periods.

Thus kamas, nunchaku, and other ideas.

Anyway,

Wrong sense of the word "fancy." I meant more in the sense of fancy looks than fancy use.

I also meant it somehow in that way. It would be rather hard to explain someone why the hell are you carrying a chain around.... Let alone some chain actually fit for hurting someone.

Unless those oppressive laws are really, really strict, a knife would be the best choice. Obviously civilian object, and still potent thing for hurting other people.

WarKitty

2011-07-21, 04:56 PM

Indeed, that's not typical at all to say at least, to any kind of "medieval setting"...

In some places at some times weapons were restricted and controlled (William the Great hard regime....) but not really prohibited at all, even there.

In many places in East Asia, however, this indeed could be the case in some periods.

Thus kamas, nunchaku, and other ideas.

Anyway,

I also meant it somehow in that way. It would be rather hard to explain someone why the hell are you carrying a chain around.... Let alone some chain actually fit for hurting someone.

Unless those oppressive laws are really, really strict, a knife would be the best choice. Obviously civilian object, and still potent thing for hurting other people.

Personally I was thinking more the red light zone - the police aren't exactly watching what's going on, but the odds of finding a decent blacksmith are pretty low.

That and, well, I'm running into the case that doing things the exact authentic way under the rules I'm stuck with using the character I have results in a pretty darn unplayable character. Welcome to 3.5.

Spiryt

2011-07-21, 05:06 PM

Personally I was thinking more the red light zone - the police aren't exactly watching what's going on, but the odds of finding a decent blacksmith are pretty low.

That and, well, I'm running into the case that doing things the exact authentic way under the rules I'm stuck with using the character I have results in a pretty darn unplayable character. Welcome to 3.5.

Well.... That's kinda the point, isn't it? Feudals/whoever restricting weapons so people trying to arm themselves in knives, clubs, chains etc. still aren't really very well equipped for full frontal violence against guards with shields, polearms etc.

But seeing how "authentic" shields and other things are in 3.5 it won't work to well at all anyway. :smalltongue:

Character could anyway always try with scythe or anything like that,especially somehow made to look as 100% farming tool.

WarKitty

2011-07-21, 05:28 PM

Well.... That's kinda the point, isn't it? Feudals/whoever restricting weapons so people trying to arm themselves in knives, clubs, chains etc. still aren't really very well equipped for full frontal violence against guards with shields, polearms etc.

But seeing how "authentic" shields and other things are in 3.5 it won't work to well at all anyway. :smalltongue:

Character could anyway always try with scythe or anything like that,especially somehow made to look as 100% farming tool.

Wrong area, really. Someone born and raised in the city red light district probably wouldn't know what to do with a scythe. Though, looking at the pictures on wikipedia, a chain whip weapon is a little more, well, foldable than a sword. Which would make it easier to hide.

Yes, I am trying to justify a bit. 3.5 doesn't give you a lot of choice on finessable weapons.

endoperez

2011-07-21, 07:16 PM

For a reflavoured "spiked chain" that you might find in an urban environment, consider meteor hammer, here's a video (http://youtu.be/sLoE6zTZyyU). It's a rope with a weight on one end, and you could fluff the weight as whatever is handy in your environment. This would work very well in a harbour where the ships would need lots of rope, and there might be pits and pieces left over (I don't know if there were, perhaps they could reuse them somehow). Describe it as an improvised weapon with some random tool tied to one end of the rope.

gkathellar

2011-07-21, 08:05 PM

Wrong area, really. Someone born and raised in the city red light district probably wouldn't know what to do with a scythe. Though, looking at the pictures on wikipedia, a chain whip weapon is a little more, well, foldable than a sword. Which would make it easier to hide.

Yes, I am trying to justify a bit. 3.5 doesn't give you a lot of choice on finessable weapons.

Folding whips are pretty excellent stealth weapons, so that would seem to fit any "well-trained urban thug" concept pretty well. They can stand in for piano wire when it's strangling time, and the only thing better than smacking someone in the side of the head with a steel whip is smacking them in the back of the head with a steel whip.

Galloglaich

2011-07-22, 12:12 AM

Interesting. Would you happen to have sources on this? I was actually stealing more from feudal japan than feudal europe in the idea (hey I just needed a background). Though the particular character has other reasons as well to not wish to appear armed.

Well that is a rather broad subject, but try this one, it will give you an idea of how well armed citizens of towns were. That is how so many of them took over from their feudal overlords.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/eltis.htm

G.

WarKitty

2011-07-22, 01:06 AM

Well that is a rather broad subject, but try this one, it will give you an idea of how well armed citizens of towns were. That is how so many of them took over from their feudal overlords.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/eltis.htm

G.

Course, if we were going by strict historical accuracy, my female thug still might not be supposed to be carrying a weapon - or it would at least be quite unusual.

Autolykos

2011-07-22, 06:30 AM

Course, if we were going by strict historical accuracy, my female thug still might not be supposed to be carrying a weapon - or it would at least be quite unusual.Women at the time usually also carried at least knives (in pretty much any culture, from Scotland to Japan) - they weren't stupid, you know.

Eldan

2011-07-22, 06:31 AM

Plus, from what I've read, the knife is the universal tool. Everyone carries one. You use to shave, and trim your nails, and for whatever craft you engage in and, often, also as your only cutlery.

gkathellar

2011-07-22, 07:37 AM

Plus, from what I've read, the knife is the universal tool. Everyone carries one. You use to shave, and trim your nails, and for whatever craft you engage in and, often, also as your only cutlery.

This does vary from culture to culture, however.

In Japan, for example, if you lived in a rural village it was a lot easier to break or circumvent the weapon laws because nobody paid attention to you. But if you were a traveller, and had to go through the checkpoints, officers would be closely inspecting you.

Southeast Asia had (and has) far more ubiquitous weapon-centric cultures.

Galloglaich

2011-07-22, 08:54 AM

In Europe, pretty much everyone was armed, and that was not considered a particular threat. What was more controlled and considered more of a threat was armor, because that meant you could fight with some impunity. If you have a knife and so does everyone else, you can cause trouble but you'll likely get hurt yourself. If you are wearing armor it means you are prepared for a fight.

They started kind of freaking out on certain missile weapons fairly early on, the crossbow famously had some laws and a few Papal bulls passed against it's use as early as the 1st Millennium, mainly because it was a quiet weapon with a certain utility in armor piercing, and so could be used for nefarious purposes. Later in the Renaissance you see a certain amount of panicked legislation around the early match-lock firearms, especially pistols, because they could be concealed and used for assassination and robbery - as they often in fact were. Same for little powerful crossbows called balesterinos which were spanned by a screw.

Generally speaking though, free people carried arms in Medieval Europe. If you were unarmed it probably meant you were a slave. They even had laws that you had to bring weapons with you to vote. This image is of an election in Zurich in 1351:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Bundesschwur_Zuerich.jpg/443px-Bundesschwur_Zuerich.jpg

As for women, they would tend to be less heavily armed usually but did often carry knives as was said above. I have seen legal records from Medieval towns in Central and Northern Europe of women being charged with assault for cutting people with knives and swords or beating people with staves or clubs fairly often so they did appear to go around armed sometimes. One case I remember was a middle class (burgher) frauline (housewife) in a small market town called Holzkirchen in Bavaria. She was called a "hundin" (bitch) by a passing man, she cut him on the hand with a knife and was charged with assault, but later acquitted because the insult was considered a greater crime. He was fined two marks.

Much like in Japan Medieval Europeans were very concerned about saving face and public honor (they still are to some extent, which is often a point of confusion between Americans and Europeans). In Medieval Europe, violence was considered an acceptable means of defending ones honor, even for women. In fact they even show women in judicial combat in several fencing manuals, and training in Sword and Buckler and other weapons.

https://mcs82010.wikispaces.com/file/view/women152jr9ae5.jpg/161358649/women152jr9ae5.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Walpurgis.jpg/130px-Walpurgis.jpg

There are legal records of women fighting in Judicial combat against men (and winning, on occasion).

Medieval Europe was really a very different and far stranger world than what is portrayed by genre fiction and RPG's.

G.

Spiryt

2011-07-22, 09:09 AM

Medieval Europe was really a very different and far stranger world than what is portrayed by genre fiction and RPG's.

....

I'm not really sure about "stranger" at all, I mean, genre fiction likes to portrait some weird places from absolute hell that haven't been blessed with such necessary things as conditioner, to nice and funny places where everybody behaves like simple ~ 60 IQ farmer....

Along with mentioned banned weapons thing.

With outrageous clothes and even more silly weapons, a lot of those ideas seems stranger than reality. :smallwink:

Anyway, 'my' Nadolski "Grunwald - chosen questions" states simply:
" Society was saturated with arms to significant degree. Particularly, cutting weapons, swords, messers or, finally, large knives were owned and carried by everyone, starting with the king, and ending with peasants traveling to marketplaces in towns"

About beginning of 15th century in Polish kingdom, obviously.

Eldan

2011-07-22, 09:13 AM

I
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Bundesschwur_Zuerich.jpg/443px-Bundesschwur_Zuerich.jpg
.

That's not an election, I know this picture. That's the defeated rulers of zurich swearing allegiance to the rulers of the four members of the Swiss Confederation.

Case in point: the colours. Those swearing in front are from Zurich (blue-white), those standing with their faces to us are Unterwalden (Red-White), Lucerne (blue -white, technically, I suppose that guy was not wearing his proper coat :smallwink:), Schwyz (Red) and Uri (yellow-black).

Galloglaich

2011-07-22, 09:57 AM

That's not an election, I know this picture. That's the defeated rulers of zurich swearing allegiance to the rulers of the four members of the Swiss Confederation.

Case in point: the colours. Those swearing in front are from Zurich (blue-white), those standing with their faces to us are Unterwalden (Red-White), Lucerne (blue -white, technically, I suppose that guy was not wearing his proper coat :smallwink:), Schwyz (Red) and Uri (yellow-black).

You are right, my bad... I was looking for an image from the Swiss confederacy voting and found that on google... but being familiar with the Swiss Confederation you are I'm sure aware that they did bring weapons to vote in many regions. They still do it in Appenzel Innerholden, although women were forbidden until very recent times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsgemeinde

G.

Galloglaich

2011-07-22, 10:02 AM

....

I'm not really sure about "stranger" at all, I mean, genre fiction likes to portrait some weird places from absolute hell that haven't been blessed with such necessary things as conditioner, to nice and funny places where everybody behaves like simple ~ 60 IQ farmer....

Along with mentioned banned weapons thing.

With outrageous clothes and even more silly weapons, a lot of those ideas seems stranger than reality. :smallwink:

To me the historical reality was far more exotic and bizzare. In the sense that Game of Thrones seems like a stranger world to me than C.S. Lewis Narnia; the latter has more magical creatures, but the former (being more closely based on history) is far more exotic for me. Matter of opinion of course.

To me most secondary and tertiary fantasy genres and most RPG's are like poor quality childrens cartoons. Yes there are outlandish figures, monsters and magic and so on, but it's all really mundane and familiar.

Danzig or Barcelona circa 1450 are places which are not at all familiar, and a lot stranger to me.

G.

Brainfart

2011-07-22, 11:37 AM

Out of curiosity, would a knight be fully armed and armoured while on the march?

Incanur

2011-07-22, 12:34 PM

Spiryt

2011-07-22, 01:06 PM

Out of curiosity, would a knight be fully armed and armoured while on the march?

This hugely depends on many things.... Time, place, social status, weapons, what exactly was "march"....

11th century knight with knee lenght maille, spear etc. could and quite often would travel with all that stuff, especially on smaller scale conflicts.

15th century rich knight, with quite a few people in his lance, plate armor, lances, would need and use some beasts of burden, maybe some kind of carts and general camp.

On larger military marches, probably forward and rear guards would be armed and armored, as well as scouts - in enemy territory at least. While the rest of the army, without expecting battle probably wouldn't need to.

For example, apparently according to some Greater Poland nobility act from May 1410 in every head of the lance had to bring 4 week supply of food and provision for him and his retinue.

Quite probably there would be some place for transport of burdensome armor of the period, too.

Matthew

2011-07-22, 05:34 PM

gkathellar

2011-07-22, 05:50 PM

Galloglaich

2011-07-22, 06:52 PM

As far as the prevalence of weapons goes, that varies a great deal depending on time and place. People argue about this a lot on historical martial arts forums. Here's (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=22719) a good thread. Various authorities did at least try to restrict weapons at times, though we don't know exactly how much success they had. Walking around - especially at night - with even a big knife (occasionally any knife at all) could get you into trouble in some medieval cities. Weapons became more common in the Renaissance era. At that point commoners regularly carried and fought with swords and rapier. The English peasantry, at least, traditionally had access to bows, swords, bucklers, and bills. Early seventeenth-century English master of defense Joseph Swetnam writes about folks wandering around with Welsh hooks - a type of polearm - in addition to swords and daggers. So there was quite a spectrum. In general, nobles had greater freedom to bear arms and having weapons while traveling was acceptable. The major restrictions come inside city walls.

You have to be very careful generalizing about the Middle Ages. Particularly when as some were doing in that Myarmoury thread*, you start conflating rules in highly centralized Kingdoms like England or France with the central and northern parts of Europe where most of the cities were.

Rules for bringing weapons into the city at the gate were for non-residents. Burghers (citizens of the town) were legally obligated to own both arms and armor. They had to swear an oath that the arms they brought to muster belonged to them and were not borrowed, they also had to swear not to sell their arms to non-citizens.

Some towns might have a size limit for blades allowed for a daily carry, but this does not affect what they have access to, because every Burgher has arms at home and every Guild has it's own armory as well. Restrictive rules were much more common in France or England where there were not many large towns except the royal and provincial capitols and these were under the direct control of the nobility who wanted to maintain strict control over how the burghers were armed (precisely because they wanted to maintain control of the towns). But in the more urbanized parts of Europe (Flanders, Holland, Northern Italy, Bohemia, Prussia and parts of what are today Germany) the control of even powerful Princes was contested by the towns themselves.

The Myarmoury thread mentions a weapons law by Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy, he was one of the most powerful rulers in the history of Europe, far wealthier than the King of France or England. He briefly did have a substantial level of control over many of the powerful trading towns in Belgium and Holland, which he sought aggressively to increase. He once famously made all of the burghers of Ghent walk past him with nooses around their necks, just to show he could execute them if he wanted to. But his son Charles the Bold was killed during an unwise attempt to gain control over several towns in Lorraine on the border between France and what is now Germany, and near the perimeter of the Swiss Confederation. After he lost his life at the hands of Swiss Halberdiers, those towns re-asserted their autonomy.

As for the majority of Central Europe, I'll leave you with a quote by Enea Silvio Piccolomini, the future Pope Pious II, commenting on the state of military preparedness in Germany in 1444 AD:

“…not only every noble, but even every burgher in the Guilds has an armoury in his house so as to appear equipped at every alarm. The skill of the citizens in the use of weapons is extraordinary.”

G.

* Some of the people on the Myarmoury Thread are very well informed folks including Ariella Elema who is one of the better researchers in this field.

Galloglaich

2011-07-22, 06:57 PM

This hugely depends on many things.... Time, place, social status, weapons, what exactly was "march"....

11th century knight with knee lenght maille, spear etc. could and quite often would travel with all that stuff, especially on smaller scale conflicts.

15th century rich knight, with quite a few people in his lance, plate armor, lances, would need and use some beasts of burden, maybe some kind of carts and general camp.

On larger military marches, probably forward and rear guards would be armed and armored, as well as scouts - in enemy territory at least. While the rest of the army, without expecting battle probably wouldn't need to.

For example, apparently according to some nobility act from May 1410, every head of the lance had to bring 4 week supply of food and provision for him and his retinue.

Quite probably there would be some place for transport of burdensome armor of the period, too.

Here is one concrete example, from the Osprey Military Book German Medieval Armies 1300-1500:

...the muster of a small army from Regensburg on campaign in 1431. The force which consisted of 73 horsemen, 71 crossbowmen, 16 handgunners, and a mixed group of smiths, leatherworkers, a chaplain, pike-makers, tailors, cooks, and butchers, for 248 men in total. They brought 6 cannon, 300 lbs of cannonballs and 200 lbs of lead shot. Forty one wagons carried powder and lead, 6,000 crossbow bolts, 300 fire-bolts, 19 handguns, cowhides, tents, and horse fodder for six weeks. Supplies for the 248 men included ninety head of oxen, 900 lbs of cooked meat, 900 lbs of lard, 1200 pieces of cheese, 80 stock-fish, 56 lbs of uncut candles, vinegar, olive oil, pepper, saffron, ginger, 2 tuns and 73 “kilderkins” of Austrian wine, and 138 “kilderkins” of beer. The total cost of this campaign was 838 guilders.

It should be noted however that this relatively small army was joined by a couple of hundred more mercenaries shortly before the battle (which they won, IIRC). This is a town militia and the town makes the most of their abilities in engineering and support for other troops, whereas the army of a Prince would generally have more soldiers with somewhat less supplies and support equipment.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-07-22, 06:59 PM

Right. Actual sword training was often the prospect of the nobleman or the professional soldier. There's a reason why peasant troops and infantry all over the world were usually equipped with simpler spears and polearms.

Again, by the late Medieval period that's simply not true, if it ever was. Urban militias were well trained in sword fighting, in fact most of the fencing manuals we have today are associated with urban fencing Guilds like the marxbruder. The famous Swiss armies of mercenaries which were routinely defeating knightly armies from the late 13th Century onward were almost all peasants and burghers, just to cite the two most obvious examples.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-07-22, 07:04 PM

Something else worth bearing in mind is that access was not equivalent to proficiency. When all free men were called to arms in England to oppose a prospective French crossing in the eleventh of early twelfth century (I forget exactly when) they apparently had to be shown how to use their arms.

This is the difference between a Kingdom and a free zone. Consider by contrast the Dithmarshen in Saxony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarschen#History

G.

Flame of Anor

2011-07-22, 10:42 PM

There are legal records of women fighting in Judicial combat against men (and winning, on occasion).

Is that like the pit fight depicted in Talhoffer's manual?

fusilier

2011-07-22, 11:39 PM

I've been out of the loop for a little bit so I have to catch up:

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but in a Medieval European setting that would be almost unheard of. All urban citizens were armed by law, they had to swear an oath to maintain their armor and weapons.

This statement seems somewhat overgeneralized to me --

You have to be very careful generalizing about the Middle Ages.

There we go. :-)

This is a bit more balanced:

Restrictive rules were much more common in France or England where there were not many large towns except the royal and provincial capitols and these were under the direct control of the nobility who wanted to maintain strict control over how the burghers were armed (precisely because they wanted to maintain control of the towns). But in the more urbanized parts of Europe (Flanders, Holland, Northern Italy, Bohemia, Prussia and parts of what are today Germany) the control of even powerful Princes was contested by the towns themselves.

Well that is a rather broad subject, but try this one, it will give you an idea of how well armed citizens of towns were. That is how so many of them took over from their feudal overlords.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/eltis.htm

G.

That's a pretty good website, but deals only with Germany.

I'm not aware, off the top of my head, of Italian cities having requirements to arm all citizens, although it wouldn't surprise me. They did have militias, and I'm sure there was at least some tax required for the upkeep. Also, the evidence from German cities seem to indicate that not everybody who was required to carry an arm, did so -- that's why regulations and fines had to be placed. Such fines evolved into a tax to pay for more permanent troops.

Finally, was everybody who lived in a town a citizen or "Burgher"?

The discussion on how well armed the peasantry and urban populations were is an interesting one. I would just like to point out that the difference between a military weapon and a farm implement wasn't necessarily that large at the time. Even if there were no regulations forbidding peasants from owning swords, I imagine that under certain circumstances it may be suspicious -- if the nobility were fearful of a rebellion for example.

A brief word on artillery mentioned on that website. I do think that during the 15th century the defenders often had more artillery available to them then besiegers. But this probably had a fair amount to do with the lack of mobility of heavy cannon at the time. During the 16th century (and about halfway through the 17th), most fortifications lacked enough artillery to properly defend themselves from siege trains. This is why the attacker could usually run an almost direct sap up to the ditch and emplace their battering cannon very close to the fort walls very quickly. When the situation reversed again in the second half of the 17th century, the slow, persistent, Vauban-style siege became necessary.

I'm not entirely sure how the change in distribution of artillery from the 15th to 16th century took place. The speed at which the French artillery could be emplaced during the 1494 campaign, and not the quantity of artillery, is generally given as the reason they were successful -- perhaps they didn't give the defenders enough time to maneuver their artillery to counter them? During the 16th and 17th centuries, when artillery was more mobile in general, it wasn't uncommon for princes and generals to strip towns and fortresses of defensive cannons to fill up their siege trains.

Also the availability and cost of gunpowder may have played a role in the 15th century -- it may have been easier for a city to stockpile gunpowder and/or it's ingredients than a siege army, allowing the city to keep up counter battery fire longer than the besiegers could.

Later in the Renaissance you see a certain amount of panicked legislation around the early match-lock firearms, especially pistols, because they could be concealed and used for assassination and robbery - as they often in fact were. Same for little powerful crossbows called balesterinos which were spanned by a screw.

A point of clarification -- it was the introduction of "wheellocks" or guns which "made their own fire" which led to widespread firearm restrictions (I'm not sure if there were regulations concerning matchlocks, although there may have been). A burning match cord is . . . uh . . . difficult to conceal in clothing, and emits an odor.

Galloglaich

2011-07-23, 12:30 AM

That's a pretty good website, but deals only with Germany.

Well, Germany wasn't a country back then, it deals with the Holy Roman Empire which covers most of Central Europe, as well as those towns operating under German Town Law which includes most of the significant cities in Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Prussia, Livonia, Silesia, Brandenburg, Switzerland, Austria, Croatia, Slovakia and some of the Dutch and Flemish towns. And quite a few in what are today France (like Strassburg).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_town_law

I'm not aware, off the top of my head, of Italian cities having requirements to arm all citizens, although it wouldn't surprise me. They did have militias, and I'm sure there was at least some tax required for the upkeep.

Yes, I'm not certain either myself, I think the Italian cities started out with a lot of militias, back in the time of the Lombard League certainly, but by the later Medieval period they made more use of paid mercenaries and contractors (Condottieri). As you said, they did pay taxes to raise money for this... the first ever sale of public stock in Florence in the 14th Century was to raise money to fight a war. I know most Italian towns did have militias, the Genoese militia were famous as mercenaries in their own right mostly as crossbowmen. But I believe in general the Italian towns had somewhat lost that hard core edge to their militias and preferred the mercenaries in the 15th and 16th C. I'm not sure I'm not as well versed on Italy yet.

But the German town law covers quite a good chunk of Europe at any rate.

Also, the evidence from German cities seem to indicate that not everybody who was required to carry an arm, did so -- that's why regulations and fines had to be placed. Such fines evolved into a tax to pay for more permanent troops.

Most of the key towns actually maintained militias well into the 17th Century, for the very good reason that they didn't trust mercenaries with their security. But the the original point was that they obviously were allowed to own arms and armor, in fact they were required to. Not everyone could afford what they were supposed to have though so the towns maintained arsenals usually situated in the guard towers, full of guns and halberds bills and munitions harness.

Finally, was everybody who lived in a town a citizen or "Burgher"?

In the chartered walled towns, most of them were, yes though it depended on the town. In the territorial towns and the suburbs, no not necessarily. Burgher was one level of citizenship. Very wealthy and / or politically powerful townsfolk, members of the town council and so on had the title of 'Grossburgher' which granted special immunities. Apprentices and Journeymen from other towns (by definition nearly all Journeymen were from other towns) had a special sort of 'half-burgher' citizenship. To live inside the town walls you have to have one of these, or be a member of a church with property inside the town (and this could be dicey sometimes as the towns had occasionally difficult relations with the church). To live in the sort of cluster of houses outside the wall, often called the 'new town' or Neustadt, you didn't necessarily have to have the citizenship, at least until they formed a commune, got a charter and built walls of their own.

The discussion on how well armed the peasantry and urban populations were is an interesting one. I would just like to point out that the difference between a military weapon and a farm implement wasn't necessarily that large at the time.

I'm not sure I really agree with that. The iron from a scythe could be made into a mace or a spear, but there are substantial differences between farm implements and actual weapons. Of course farmers had the former and used them sometimes in battle when that's all they had, but they also in many cases had actual purpose made weapons of steel.

Even if there were no regulations forbidding peasants from owning swords, I imagine that under certain circumstances it may be suspicious -- if the nobility were fearful of a rebellion for example.

My point is that while Europe in this time was a patchwork, in many if not most regions, peasants were actually fairly heavily armed.

A brief word on artillery mentioned on that website. I do think that during the 15th century the defenders often had more artillery available to them then besiegers. But this probably had a fair amount to do with the lack of mobility of heavy cannon at the time. During the 16th century (and about halfway through the 17th), most fortifications lacked enough artillery to properly defend themselves from siege trains. This is why the attacker could usually run an almost direct sap up to the ditch and emplace their battering cannon very close to the fort walls very quickly. When the situation reversed again in the second half of the 17th century, the slow, persistent, Vauban-style siege became necessary.

There have been a lot of articles about the successes the French and Burgundians had with their vastly improved cannon in the 15th Century, emphasizing all the cities which they quickly broke into, but these tend to ignore the fact that well prepared cities could apparently resist sieges almost indefinitely. Those which didn't prepare were rapidly crushed by the Princes. That is why as it mentions in the article I posted, towns were spending 70-80% of their tax income on cannons and fortifications in the 15th Century. Those towns which prepared well were all but impregnable.

For example when Charles the Bold attempted to besiege Nuess in 1474, with the help of a little financial support and some supplies from their allies (especially the nearby town of Cologne), they were able to fend off the siege for over a year, until it was eventually lifted. This despite the fact that Charles the Bold had the best artillery train in the world at that time (with the possible exception of the Ottoman Emperor).

During the 13 Years War, towns such as Torun and Marienberg and castles like Malbork were besieged multiple times, without any success. Malbork castle held out for 3 years against the Teutonic Order from 1457 to 1460, despite their many cannon in place since they occupied the outer town (and were able to easily move canon on boats up and down the rivers). Similarly a small force of mercenaries and Burghers (with plenty of canon) held out in the citadel of Golub castle for two years from 1460 until it was finally relieved in 1462. So the sudden failure of static defense was yet another thing which was not universal in the Medieval period by any means.

Also the availability and cost of gunpowder may have played a role in the 15th century -- it may have been easier for a city to stockpile gunpowder and/or it's ingredients than a siege army, allowing the city to keep up counter battery fire longer than the besiegers could.

The towns had the mills, big forges and the gunpowder and far more engineers... they also tended to just have more money than the Princes because most of the Princes assets were tied up in land, whereas the Burghers were more liquid. That's why so many of the old Hanse cities remained independent right up to modern times. A town like this is a tough nut to crack (this is a 17th Century painting with full Trace Itallienne defenses of course):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Absolute_Strasbourg_1644_Merian_01.jpg

A point of clarification -- it was the introduction of "wheellocks" or guns which "made their own fire" which led to widespread firearm restrictions (I'm not sure if there were regulations concerning matchlocks, although there may have been). A burning match cord is . . . uh . . . difficult to conceal in clothing, and emits an odor.

Yes you are right I meant to say wheellocks. They didn't make to many matchlock pistols...

G.

Galloglaich

2011-07-23, 12:47 AM

Is that like the pit fight depicted in Talhoffer's manual?

There is a record of a man and a woman fighting a judicial duel with sword and buckler in Switzerland in the 14th Century.

G.

fusilier

2011-07-23, 02:27 AM

Well, Germany wasn't a country back then . . .

Hi G. I was just giving you a little bit of a hard time, nothing personal! :-) Your first statement was very general, but I know you know better (as you demonstrated). ;-)

The article specifically mentions Germany -- I know that Germany wasn't a nation at that time, but it was a socio-geographical entity (like Italy). The point was it was only talking about Germany, and I don't think the entirety of the Holy Roman Empire was intended. Also, I'm of the opinion that the rules concerning town militias were developed by the towns themselves, and not handed down from a higher authority. So the political entity that existed above the town, isn't really relevant in the discussion. (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire didn't enforce laws on town militias)

Yes, I'm not certain either myself, I think the Italian cities started out with a lot of militias, back in the time of the Lombard League certainly, but by the later Medieval period they made more use of paid mercenaries and contractors (Condottieri). As you said, they did pay taxes to raise money for this... the first ever sale of public stock in Florence in the 14th Century was to raise money to fight a war. I know most Italian towns did have militias, the Genoese militia were famous as mercenaries in their own right mostly as crossbowmen. But I believe in general the Italian towns had somewhat lost that hard core edge to their militias and preferred the mercenaries in the 15th and 16th C. I'm not sure I'm not as well versed on Italy yet.

. . .

Most of the key towns actually maintained militias well into the 17th Century, for the very good reason that they didn't trust mercenaries with their security. But the the original point was that they obviously were allowed to own arms and armor, in fact they were required to. Not everyone could afford what they were supposed to have though so the towns maintained arsenals usually situated in the guard towers, full of guns and halberds bills and munitions harness.

Dealing with the last part first -- I think that was generally the case in most places. If the city itself was under threat, everybody was expected to do something in defense of the town, and maintaining a stockpile of weapons was prudent.

I'm home now, and can look at Mallet's Mercenaries and their Masters (which is back in print and very affordable), but it's very late so I will just go from memory. In 15th century Italy, a kind of permanent military developed. Mallet argues that the Mercenaries themselves became more and more professional, and developed into permanent forces -- BUT in the latter half of the century they were increasingly augmented by true permanent forces under the direct control of the city. Arguably this could be called the city "militia" -- and it would fall under the organization of the militia. However, it would be incorrect to call them "Mercenaries" -- although they were full-time, paid soldiers. So the "militia" of a late 15th century Italian city may include professional full-time soldiers -- who aren't merely mercenaries attached to the militia.

But the German town law covers quite a good chunk of Europe at any rate.

Well, yes, but we are talking about trends in German town law. Not every town passed identical laws, and although there were similarities some were slower or faster at adopting newer regulations (same is true in Italy -- Florence was notoriously slow at modernizing it's condotte with mercenaries). Also, there's a good chunk of Europe that isn't Germany: France, Spain, Italy, etc. At times, it almost sounds like your arguing that if it was true in Germany, it was true in all of Europe -- but I don't think that's your intention. Indeed, at other times, you point out the differences between different regions.

In the chartered walled towns, most of them were, yes though it depended on the town. In the territorial towns and the suburbs, no not necessarily. Burgher was one level of citizenship. Very wealthy and / or politically powerful townsfolk, members of the town council and so on had the title of 'Grossburgher' which granted special immunities. Apprentices and Journeymen from other towns (by definition nearly all Journeymen were from other towns) had a special sort of 'half-burgher' citizenship. To live inside the town walls you have to have one of these, or be a member of a church with property inside the town (and this could be dicey sometimes as the towns had occasionally difficult relations with the church). To live in the sort of cluster of houses outside the wall, often called the 'new town' or Neustadt, you didn't necessarily have to have the citizenship, at least until they formed a commune, got a charter and built walls of their own.

This fits a little bit better with my rather feeble understanding -- which was that the "burghers" were the town elders (who could be derived from different sources, depending upon location/time), and the master craftsmen. I'm sure it varied from town-to-town and time-to-time, but I thought that only they were considered the full "citizens" with rights to vote, etc (again depending upon what kind of government). In Florence the pool of eligible people for government office was only about 4% of the total population -- I need to research how this effected the militia -- and officials were typically chosen at random from the guild members, although there were certain extra limitations.

I'm not sure I really agree with that. The iron from a scythe could be made into a mace or a spear, but there are substantial differences between farm implements and actual weapons. Of course farmers had the former and used them sometimes in battle when that's all they had, but they also in many cases had actual purpose made weapons of steel.

I realized that my statement might be somewhat confrontational. The point here is that were not dealing with pitchforks versus machine guns and Stokes mortars. Were dealing with pitchforks versus spears and swords. Really what's the huge difference between a pitchfork and a spear? In my opinion, organization, mounts, and armor are going to give peasants more trouble than technological weapon disparity when faced with experienced soldiers. In small, ambush-like actions, the peasants may even be able to side-step those first two elements, and rely upon numerical superiority to counter experience. However, this is a digression.

My point is that while Europe in this time was a patchwork, in many if not most regions, peasants were actually fairly heavily armed.

At least by the end of the 16th century a costume book described Italian peasants in the region of Padua: "As weapons they carry spears and staffs and certain knives, which they wear at their belts and sometimes use to wound their rivals in love" -- Then a picture shows a peasant playing flute, with a spear over his shoulder and wearing a rather large "knife" which I will call a falchion (it being Italy), but others might identify it as a "grossemesser". A weapon, not unlike a modern day machete, which could easily be justified for more mundane uses.

There have been a lot of articles about the successes the French and Burgundians had with their vastly improved cannon in the 15th Century, emphasizing all the cities which they quickly broke into, but these tend to ignore the fact that well prepared cities could apparently resist sieges almost indefinitely. Those which didn't prepare were rapidly crushed by the Princes. That is why as it mentions in the article I posted, towns were spending 70-80% of their tax income on cannons and fortifications in the 15th Century. Those towns which prepared well were all but impregnable.
. . .
So the sudden failure of static defense was yet another thing which was not universal in the Medieval period by any means.

Yeah, the improvement in artillery is generally overstated. I think the stronger fortresses in Italy during the 1494 campaign, were simply avoided, or surrendered as part of a larger agreement (Tuscany put up no resistance for instance). Nonetheless, it did mark a shift. Don't be misled, some cities fell very quickly in the 1400s, and some fortresses held out for a very long time in the 1500s and early 1600s. But the general trends tended toward the opposite.

The towns had the mills, big forges and the gunpowder and far more engineers... they also tended to just have more money than the Princes because most of the Princes assets were tied up in land, whereas the Burghers were more liquid. That's why so many of the old Hanse cities remained independent right up to modern times. A town like this is a tough nut to crack (this is a 17th Century painting with full Trace Itallienne defenses of course):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Absolute_Strasbourg_1644_Merian_01.jpg

Ah, but how many cannons do you count mounted on those walls?! (The illustrator certainly didn't skimp on the details) :-)

Even if it lacked artillery for a proper defense, the place was not completely indefensible. Good supplies, a well motivated garrison, the ability to plug breeches when they occur, and a well designed trace might allow the besieged to out last the besiegers. But I think that the majority of sieges during the 16th century were successful. That's not to say that success was guaranteed.

Ok, I'm very tired and am having trouble focusing. Hopefully this wasn't too rambling.

Galloglaich

2011-07-23, 10:25 AM

Hi G. I was just giving you a little bit of a hard time, nothing personal! :-) Your first statement was very general, but I know you know better (as you demonstrated). ;-)

Not at all, I appreciate a good debate on an interesting topic.

I'm of the opinion that the rules concerning town militias were developed by the towns themselves, and not handed down from a higher authority. So the political entity that existed above the town, isn't really relevant in the discussion. (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire didn't enforce laws on town militias)

No that is quite true, but the towns used specific charters which had a lot of details, read the wiki I posted earlier on German Town Law. There were specific versions of the Handfeste, the town charter, such as Lubeck Law, Magdeberg Law, Kulm Law and so on. The other major difference was whether it was a Guild town or a Patrician town.

So the "militia" of a late 15th century Italian city may include professional full-time soldiers -- who aren't merely mercenaries attached to the militia.
That may be the case but there were also many cases from the 14th Century to the 16th of towns putting their trust in various famous Condottieri who sometimes switched sides to fight for the highest bidder, and they were also known to arrange combat in which neither side suffered any casualties, by mutual agreement.

I know wiki is not really that legitimate of a source but the article on the Condottieri is enlightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri

Well, yes, but we are talking about trends in German town law. Not every town passed identical laws, and although there were similarities some were slower or faster at adopting newer regulations (same is true in Italy -- Florence was notoriously slow at modernizing it's condotte with mercenaries). Also, there's a good chunk of Europe that isn't Germany: France, Spain, Italy, etc.

Yes but towns in Saxony, Frisia, Bavaria and Prussia may all be under almost the same version of say, Magdeburg law. This is a color coded chart depicting some of the groupings of different versions of German town law, you'll notice that quite a few of them are in what is today considered Eastern Europe

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Date-of-charter-timeline.gif

...and the chart leaves out quite a few in Scandinavia and the low countries. So there were some cookie-cutter similarities between many of these towns.

At times, it almost sounds like your arguing that if it was true in Germany, it was true in all of Europe -- but I don't think that's your intention. Indeed, at other times, you point out the differences between different regions.

No but until the 16th Century, there were only a few urbanized zones in Europe. The first and foremost was Lombardy (and some other regions in Northern Italy). This is where the Renaissance started in the late 14th Century (in Florence). The second was Flanders and the Low Countries, in what is today Belgium and Holland. By the 14th Century these towns were as big and as culturally and technologically sophisticated as Lombardy. By the 15th Century the urban zones of Northern Germany and the Baltic had reached near parity, as had a cluster of towns in Southern Germany such as Augsburg and Ulm, and another group of German towns along the French border including Strassburg and Cologne.

Outside of those zones, there weren't a lot of towns in Western Europe other than a few royal capitols (Paris, London, Madrid) and provincial Capitols (Barcelona, Marseilles, Lyon).

In other words, if you are talking about cities in Europe, quite a few of them operate under German laws or the very near equivalent (as in the towns of Holland and the Low Countries)

This fits a little bit better with my rather feeble understanding -- which was that the "burghers" were the town elders In Florence the pool of eligible people for government office was only about 4% of the total population -- I need to research how this effected the militia -- and officials were typically chosen at random from the guild members, although there were certain extra limitations.

This depends on the time period. In the 12th-13th Century your feeble memory would be correct, in the 14th and 15th probably not. This would be the ratio in what was called a "Patrician" town in Central Europe, but most towns by the end of the 14th Century were Guild towns. If you review the article I linked on "German" town defense he gets into this a bit. In Germany there were only a few towns which had full Patrician administrations in the 15th Century, Nuremberg was one. Mainz was another after they were reconquered by their Archbishop in 1461. But in most of the rest there was a Guild administration, which meant that almost everyone in the town (all the males) had a vote in town elections of the (sometimes very large, several hundred member) town councils, and over other matters the towns sometimes voted on like going to war. Guild Masters tended to be elected to the council, as well as some Patricians, and Journeymen. But the pool of eligibility it was much higher than 4%, probably more like 30%-40%. It was the same in most of the Flemish and Dutch towns.

Most of the Italian towns, by contrast, were so called "Patrician" towns in which only the elite merchant families were eligible. In Venice it was a very small number indeed.

But nothing was chosen at random, who got on the council was always heavily contested by different factions in the town. Most towns had small civil wars in the 14th Century, they eventually worked out power sharing arrangements by the 15th, or else they were taken over by regional Princes. But it was always a very carefully worked out power sharing arrangement between rival groups within the town, different Guilds, merchant families, sometimes elements of the Church, and so on.

I realized that my statement might be somewhat confrontational. The point here is that were not dealing with pitchforks versus machine guns and Stokes mortars. Were dealing with pitchforks versus spears and swords.

Go to the hardware store today and see how much a pitchfork costs, and then go and see how much a realistic, truly functional sword replica costs. You can get a pretty decent low-end sword replica of stainless steel for around $150*, but a pitch fork is more like $15. This is because it's simply more labor intensive to make a sword, even with modern industrial techniques. It was much the same in the medieval period. Now of course some peasant tools were made into weapons, but that was a stop-gap really. To really make it into a real weapon it has to be completely re-done.

And you are also forgetting that by the end of the 14th Century, infantry is going to be using quite expensive missile weapons, heavy crossbows or early firearms, and these again are not cheap.

At least by the end of the 16th century a costume book described Italian peasants in the region of Padua: "As weapons they carry spears and staffs and certain knives, which they wear at their belts and sometimes use to wound their rivals in love" -- Then a picture shows a peasant playing flute, with a spear over his shoulder and wearing a rather large "knife" which I will call a falchion (it being Italy), but others might identify it as a "grossemesser". A weapon, not unlike a modern day machete, which could easily be justified for more mundane uses.

It was the same in 'Germany' and throughout Eastern Europe, except in the Tartar controlled areas of Russia which were of course more strict.

Don't be misled, some cities fell very quickly in the 1400s, and some fortresses held out for a very long time in the 1500s and early 1600s. But the general trends tended toward the opposite.

I'm not so sure I agree with that.

Even if it lacked artillery for a proper defense, the place was not completely indefensible. (snip) But I think that the majority of sieges during the 16th century were successful. That's not to say that success was guaranteed.

No indeed, that is Strassbourg, their fortifications were formidable and they were very successful at fending off sieges in the 16th and 17th Centuries, in fact the town was never captured throughout all the tribulations of that very violent time period. Or ever if memory serves. It's the same for Danzig in the 15th and 16th Centuries (including in a major siege by the King of Poland in 1577), Bremen, and many other major towns in this time period.

Sometimes it seems you extrapolate Italy and France to the entirety of Europe ;)

G.

* a truly good quality realistic one will cost you $500 - $1000 of course, around the price range for a real nice hunting rifle or assault rifle today.

Incanur

2011-07-23, 11:39 AM

You have to be very careful generalizing about the Middle Ages.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying.

Some towns might have a size limit for blades allowed for a daily carry, but this does not affect what they have access to, because every Burgher has arms at home and every Guild has it's own armory as well.

It does suggest folks often considered wandering around with swords and especially polearms sketchy behavior. This varies by time, location, and social status, of course. As an analogy, tons of Americans today have access to rifles and shotguns, but rolling down the street with such equipment will get you stares at the least.

Galloglaich

2011-07-23, 12:37 PM

yeah I think that is a pretty good analogy. Walking down the street with body armor and a military assault rifle even more so. It was the same for people in armor back in the Medieval / Early Modern period.

G.

fusilier

2011-07-23, 04:52 PM

That may be the case but there were also many cases from the 14th Century to the 16th of towns putting their trust in various famous Condottieri who sometimes switched sides to fight for the highest bidder, and they were also known to arrange combat in which neither side suffered any casualties, by mutual agreement.

I know wiki is not really that legitimate of a source but the article on the Condottieri is enlightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri

Wikipedia is fairly weak on this subject, as are many sources about Condottieri. The defections are often exaggerated or overstated, and the whole discussion tends to be colored by Machiavelli's opinions -- he had an ax to grind.

I checked up the sources for this, there were basically two different formations that were being used almost universally in Italian cities by the mid-15th century. The first were the lanze spezzate, broken lances. These were usually condottiere from disbanded companies, or deserters, and they were now in the direct pay of the city. The other were infantry that were referred to as provisionati, but that term is very wide, and could also refer to cavalry. In the 1420s Milan had 1,000 provisionati, but by 1476 they boasted of 10,000 permanent infantrymen including 2,000 hand gunners. However, by that time provisionati in Milan and Venice would have been a sort of "superior militia":

The men selected were fully armed and commanded by professional infantry constables. They could be called out for full time service in an emergency and otherwise for periodic training sessions.
. . .
All these, then were permanent forces in the most complete sense of the word. By the middle of the fifteenth century the Milanese, Venetian and papal armies, and to a lesser extent the Neapolitan army, were filled with growing numbers of professional soldiers who were not part of the condotta system. There is little indication that Florence had much of a standing force of this type, and here once again we are faced with an impression of Florentine backwardness in military developments during the Renaissance period.

At a later point Mallet discusses militia, and the impression one gets is somewhat different. Dealing specifically with the 15th century, it looks like most militia in Italy were, unwillingly, drafted from the countryside and not from within the city (Italian cities being "city-states"). Although I suspect in an emergency, where a city itself was about to be attacked, the city's local militia would be mobilized. Could german cities rely upon the countryside to supply militia for a campaign? (Not that the Italian cities could really "rely" upon such militia -- desertion rates were high, and it was difficult to get them to move far from their homes -- but they could at least be able to raise the force).

No but until the 16th Century, there were only a few urbanized zones in Europe. The first and foremost was Lombardy (and some other regions in Northern Italy). This is where the Renaissance started in the late 14th Century (in Florence). The second was Flanders and the Low Countries, in what is today Belgium and Holland. By the 14th Century these towns were as big and as culturally and technologically sophisticated as Lombardy. By the 15th Century the urban zones of Northern Germany and the Baltic had reached near parity, as had a cluster of towns in Southern Germany such as Augsburg and Ulm, and another group of German towns along the French border including Strassburg and Cologne.

That's pretty fair. One of the most accessible books on Medieval (not Renaissance) cities, is Gies "Life in a Medieval City" which is about Troyes in France, before the Black Death. I have heard some complaints about Gies book, but it's still a common source.

Guild Masters tended to be elected to the council, as well as some Patricians, and Journeymen. But the pool of eligibility it was much higher than 4%, probably more like 30%-40%. It was the same in most of the Flemish and Dutch towns.

Most of the Italian towns, by contrast, were so called "Patrician" towns in which only the elite merchant families were eligible. In Venice it was a very small number indeed.

But nothing was chosen at random, who got on the council was always heavily contested by different factions in the town. Most towns had small civil wars in the 14th Century, they eventually worked out power sharing arrangements by the 15th, or else they were taken over by regional Princes. But it was always a very carefully worked out power sharing arrangement between rival groups within the town, different Guilds, merchant families, sometimes elements of the Church, and so on.

In Florence, most officials were chosen by random from a list of approved candidates for two-month terms.

Venice and Genoa were structured different but had somewhat similar systems to each other, where the Doge was elected for life, although in Genoa the position was ham-stringed by the ruling classes, and rather volatile leading to multi-term Doges. Also, Genoa started out with a system of popular suffrage, but it became more restricted, and the position of Doge was restricted to a two-year term in the early 1500s.

I'm not so sure I agree with that.

Well during the wars in Flanders in the late 16th century, both sides became rather adept at taking fortresses, and estimating how much time and resources would be required to subdue a fortress. Part of this was a matter of necessity; warfare was difficult to conduct without capturing fortresses lying on the supply routes. The new fortress designs of the 16th century made sieges more costly and protracted, which, in theory, would appear to give the edge to the defender. But the attack adapted as well, and a dearth of artillery during the 16th century often meant that a fortress would be without a sufficient amount of artillery. The distribution of artillery among the defenders at Malta is an indication of this problem (and also demonstrates that the defenders had a good idea of what was going to happen).

I know that there were walled cities that were taken by storm, with no preliminary siege during the 15th century -- not sure of the location, because I'm having trouble checking up the source.

Sometimes it seems you extrapolate Italy and France to the entirety of Europe ;)

Ah, but typically I point out that I am specifically referring to Italy (not really France, I don't actually know much about Renaissance France, and in terms of siege warfare in the 16th century Flanders tends to dominate that discussion).

Really, it was that this statement made me cringe:

. . .[I]n a Medieval European setting that would be almost unheard of. All urban citizens were armed by law, they had to swear an oath to maintain their armor and weapons.

I do think it's good to point out the differences, as it's common for people to extrapolate from one region of Europe to the whole of Europe.

Galloglaich

2011-07-23, 07:08 PM

Could german cities rely upon the countryside to supply militia for a campaign? (Not that the Italian cities could really "rely" upon such militia -- desertion rates were high, and it was difficult to get them to move far from their homes -- but they could at least be able to raise the force).

From what I have read, in the 14th and 15th Century the German Burgher militias seem to have been pretty effective, but limited in certain respects. On the one hand they frequently won defensive battles even against powerful Princes and according to Ospreys German Medieval Armies, town militias captured over 100 castles from Robber Knights in the late 14th Century alone. On the other hand, they often had rules stating that they wanted to be back behind their town walls by nightfall. They were reluctant to fight in the field for long periods, and to engage in offensive campaigns that they didn't view as absolutely necessary.

This varied from town to town of course, the city of Danzig had to threaten their citizens with forfeiture of their citizenship if they didn't go out to fight the Teutonic Knights at the start of the 13 Years War. but the citizens of Griefswald and Stetten eagerly went out after the Duke of Pomerania when he went hunting in their lands without permission. The Swiss towns of course were extremely aggressive toward anyone encroaching on their sphere of influence. But I think "generally" (trying to be careful about that) in Central Europe the burghers kept up their training to fight if they had to, to keep their town free for example, but saw their role in life primarily as merchants or weavers and so on. They wanted to die comfortable in bed not gloriously in battle. But this did not prevent them from being able to fight, that seems pretty clear. The concept of the "Renaissance Man" who can read and think and appreciate art and so on, but can also fight, ride a horse, hunt, work with his hands, build things ... seems to be equally applicable in the Medieval period.

So I haven't read much about "German" towns imposing levies on the countryside in the Medieval period. I think that is actually what the Abbeys and the Knights and Princes did more often. There are records of the Teutonic Order for example using a rural levy drawn mostly from the lands of Abbeys and Convents in their territory. The Swedes also had a rural levy called the leidang which could be summoned by the King or the regional Princes or Gentry. These seemed to be heavily armed from the records and seem to have been militarily effective (quite often rural levies in other areas were not effective). It makes sense for territorial princes who had land and tenants to use rural levies since they were often short on liquidity anyway, their wealth was in land and vassals.

But the towns who had more cash seemed to mostly hire professional mercenaries when they needed to make risky or prolonged military operations. These would be backed up by a core group of the most military trained among the townsfolk, the Konstafler and some of the more military oriented Guilds, as part of the elite and as support troops. I don't think they used the rural people much unless they were in an area where the the peasants were already kind of warlike, such as certain parts of Saxony (the Dithmarshen comes to mind) or Frisia for example.

That said a lot of "German" towns did have rather large rural areas under their control, in a zone called the Feldmark. They would own sometimes 50 or 100 villages in the surrounding area, whose inhabitants were considered subjects of the town not citizens or Burghers. Later by the 16th Century you have the formation of the Landsknecht companies. These are not direct levies but mercenary armies called up by a Condottieri captain, and originally built upon a cadre of Swiss professionals (actually Swiss militia technically) but their ranks were drawn from the rural areas. Notably in Swabia and Franconia I think. Landsknecht companies were often hired by towns and town leagues (Stadtbund)

In Bohemia many of the rural people had gotten into the heresy of the Hussites, and these guys fought as mercenaries all over Central Europe after the Hussite wars ended. They were sort of the Swiss of the East. I'm sure the Bohemian towns and some German towns in Silesia hired these people, but they weren't really a levy. I get the impression sometimes that many if not most of the soldiers on both sides in the 13 Years war and all seven or eight sides of the Hungarian wars were Bohemian Hussites. I think the Hungarian towns may have also used their own local levies but I don't think they worked out very well. It seems like once a population loses their martial traditions it's hard to re-establish them.

I have heard some complaints about Gies book, but it's still a common source.

I think Gies (and his brother is it?) is ok for France and England but not so much for Central Europe or Italy.

In Florence, most officials were chosen by random from a list of approved candidates for two-month terms.

Yes but behind the scenes as I'm sure you are aware, Il Veccio ("The old man") ruled the scene, the Medici family pretty much called the shots there from the 15th Century.

Venice and Genoa were structured different but had somewhat similar systems to each other, where the Doge was elected for life, although in Genoa the position was ham-stringed by the ruling classes, and rather volatile leading to multi-term Doges. Also, Genoa started out with a system of popular suffrage, but it became more restricted, and the position of Doge was restricted to a two-year term in the early 1500s.

Venice was ruled by the Maggior Consiglio, the Great Council, which was something like 500 members from the powerful Patrician families, which in turn elected the Council of Ten and the Doge, though there were term limits and they would alternate families so that no one family would get too powerful.

Genoa which was such an incredibly powerful republic in the earlier Middle Ages seems to have become dominated by the Bank of St. George in the early 14th Century, then after a series of disasters with their overseas colonies in the Crimea and elsewhere they were invaded by France toward the end, and later basically taken over by the Visconti family of Milan and the Duke of Milan. They revived to some extent in the 16th Century partly due to the support of some of their most successful mariners such as Christopher and Andrea Doria, but they basically became part of the Spanish Empire during this time.

Well during the wars in Flanders in the late 16th century, both sides became rather adept at taking fortresses, (snip) I know that there were walled cities that were taken by storm, with no preliminary siege during the 15th century -- not sure of the location, because I'm having trouble checking up the source.

The point of confusion is that there were castles taken and cities taken as well, but there were also many which resisted. If you read through the history over time, you tend to find the same towns and the same castles falling over and and over again, and the ones which resist, resist a few times and tend to be left alone. Fortifications and cannons play a role, but ultimately it's the location which defines how defensible a fort or a town really is. That and how tough the people are. There were many places which just seemed to be impregnable all through the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries. I can cite some examples if you like. In Prussia two prominent ones are Danzig and Malbork castle.

Really, it was that this statement made me cringe:

Ah, well my bad, it was an ambiguous statement I guess, I meant all the citizens of the town in question, not all the citizens of all towns throughout the planet. :)

I do think it's good to point out the differences, as it's common for people to extrapolate from one region of Europe to the whole of Europe.

no that is indeed a very good point. Medieval Europe tends to be perceived as monolithic far too much especially in RPG circles. Even the more "Realistic" and well researched games base everything on a kind of really boring backwater part of early Medieval France or England, ala Geis and his ilk, and extrapolate that literally over a whole planet. I remember one game, think it was Harn? I was really excited about at first and bought all the books. Because they had nailed the 12th Century Norman world so well.. but then I realized they basically made every land in their world more or less fit that same template. It was kind of a let down. Still sitting on my bookshelf.

G.

fusilier

2011-07-24, 01:21 AM

Just to be clear, when I was talking about the Italian Militias it was of the 15th century -- I believe Italian militias had a good reputation in the late Medieval/Early Renaissance. Also, concerning the 15th century, while militia work could be problematic (for very similar reasons, they didn't like to go far from home), all Italian cities still raised militia forces in a major campaign, and didn't rely solely on Condottieri. Although, Florence was noted as typically just providing pioneers from the militia. [Pioneers were useful in constructing fieldworks, and preparing the ground for field artillery, two tasks that became increasingly important over the course of 15th century Italian warfare]

I think Gies (and his brother is it?) is ok for France and England but not so much for Central Europe or Italy.

I've read Joseph and Frances Gies' Life in a Medieval City. It's ok, but like we've both said, is about a medieval French city -- what is said there doesn't necessarily apply to all european medieval cities.

Yes but behind the scenes as I'm sure you are aware, Il Veccio ("The old man") ruled the scene, the Medici family pretty much called the shots there from the 15th Century.

Well, that's something of simplification. Over time they generally concentrated their power through various behind the scenes maneuvers. But from time-to-time they got kicked out for a little while too.

In the mid-16th century, the Genovese became the bankers for the Spanish (after the Fuggers, I believe), and they basically fell within the Spanish sphere at the time.

Ah, well my bad, it was an ambiguous statement I guess, I meant all the citizens of the town in question, not all the citizens of all towns throughout the planet. :)

:-)

Eldan

2011-07-24, 06:36 AM

gkathellar

2011-07-24, 07:38 AM

Question: Why is everyone spelling "Bürger" with an h? No German source I can find seems to spell it like that. I've found Bürger, Burger, Burgære, Purgari, as well as several spellings for Burg (burc, borg, baurg, burcht, burk, buag, bursch), but never with an h.

Because everyone is trying desperately not to think about ground meat, iceburg lettuce and tomatoes piled on top of a white-bread bun.

Knaight

2011-07-24, 07:49 AM

Because everyone is trying desperately not to think about ground meat, iceburg lettuce and tomatoes piled on top of a white-bread bun.

Yeah, there are some major issues with the example here. Nobody wants that.:smallwink:

Eldan

2011-07-24, 07:52 AM

Because everyone is trying desperately not to think about ground meat, iceburg lettuce and tomatoes piled on top of a white-bread bun.

That's why you spell it Bürger. It's also way more metal :smallwink:

Galloglaich

2011-07-24, 09:57 AM

Burgh is an English / Scottish spelling, and yes I use it so people don't confuse what I'm saying with some form of food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgh

G.

Yora

2011-07-24, 10:03 AM

I'm from Hamburg, what do you think we are called? :smallbiggrin:

gkathellar

2011-07-24, 10:46 AM

I'm from Hamburg, what do you think we are called? :smallbiggrin:

Bacon doubles? Jucy Lucies? I don't know, man, I wasn't there, I didn't see it happen.

Galloglaich

2011-07-24, 01:17 PM

Here is an account I just compiled for my book of a battle from the 13 Years War involving some burgher militia from Danzig, which I thought some of y'all might find interesting and relevant to the topic:

Battle of Świecino
This was a relatively small but very important battle in the 13 Years War which took place in 1462, near the site of the earlier battle of Konicz in 1454. The Poles under command of the new Polish ‘Royal’ Condottiro Piotor Dunin had a force of 62 heavy Polish knights, 500 mixed cavalry, and 400 Bohemian mercenary infantry. This was reinforced by militia forces from Danzig under the city councilor Matthias Hagen, consisting of 50 Konstafler heavy cavalry and 600 well equipped crossbowmen and heavy infantry, plus some Kashubian charcoal burners who served as scouts and guides.

The Teutonic forces under the formidable Austrian Condottiero Frtiz Raweneck consisted of mostly mercenaries: 1000 mixed cavalry and 400 infantry with some tabors, plus another 1400 ‘auxiliary infantry’ made up of peasant levies. There were also an unknown number of Brother Knights, probably less than 50. Both sides deployed tabor, though the Polish / Prussian tabor was larger.

Before the battle, both sides positioned themselves around a lake, and prepared positions, cutting down trees, creating log barriers. Finally on September 17 the two armies moved into contact. First the Polish cavalry charged, but were beaten back by the German tabor; then the Teutonic cavalry counter charged, but suffered heavy casualties from crossbow fire from the Danziger infantry. During this fight Fritz was wounded by a crossbow bolt. He rallied his forces and charged the Prussian Tabor a second time, but this time he was killed and his cavalry force was wiped out. The Polish cavalry successfully charged the German tabor and broke it, completing a total rout of Teutonic forces.

The Teutonic side lost 700 infantry and 300 cavalry, with 50 captured, plus both Raweneck and his subordinate Kaspar Nostyc were killed. The Poles lost just 100 soldiers, but 150 later died from wounds. Among the dead on the Polish side was Maciej Hagen from Danzig. Piotr Dunin was also wounded twice, but recovered. The battle had major strategic importance because it relieved pressure on Danzig, allowing them to use their forces to patrol the Vistula river and to take offensive actions, and it cut one of the major land supply lines for the Order, which was very significant because they were already cut off by sea due to the Danzig navy. It was also the first major victory in an open field battle by the Polish / Prussian forces.

G.

a_humble_lich

2011-07-24, 01:37 PM

I seem to remember in Rome (in Classical times), there were laws prohibiting people from carrying weapons in the city. Would Medieval cities have similar laws? What about Byzantine cities?

Eldan

2011-07-24, 02:22 PM

I'm from Hamburg, what do you think we are called? :smallbiggrin:

Germans :smalltongue:

Galloglaich

2011-07-24, 08:00 PM

I seem to remember in Rome (in Classical times), there were laws prohibiting people from carrying weapons in the city. Would Medieval cities have similar laws? What about Byzantine cities?

Didn't we just have a long conversation about this? ;)

G.

fusilier

2011-07-24, 11:40 PM

a_humble_lich

2011-07-25, 12:05 AM

Yes, that is what I was trying to get at. People could own weapons, but could/did they carry them openly within the city? (I did appear ambiguous in the earlier post :smallredface:)

Matthew

2011-07-25, 12:29 AM

Very true. It would be interesting to know how the English fyrd functioned in this respect, as presumably there was a period of disarmament as part of the Norman conquest, followed by sufficient integration within a few decades for the Norman kings to expect service from settlers and indigenous English alike, then after the civil war we have the various assizes of arms, before in the thirteenth century a program for training large numbers of men in the use of the long bow. Are we seeing dips and rises in the degree to which men are armed over the period or is it really more of a continuous relatively high degree of armament? Looking at some of the poetry of the period, it is clear that in the twelfth century the sax or langsax was common enough amongst the English to be singled out in the Brut as their signature weapon when re-establishing control of the country (and imagined event in their distant past). There is a good sequence in Havelok the Dane where the townsmen come against the hero armed with swords, daggers and spears/glaives in the town itself. The text is particular about the drawing of swords being a sign of threat, suggesting a level of normality to seeing men with swords in scabbards.

Spiryt

2011-07-25, 04:24 AM

Actually G, this raises a very good question.

Just because citizens were obligated to maintain arms for militia service, doesn't necessarily mean they were free to carry arms in the city when not actually executing their militia duties . . .

And again, this is very broad question, about whole continent trough at least 500 years...

But generally, I've never heard of any significant restrictions in towns of High Medieval period.

Paintings, etc. often show armed people of all social roots - obviously armed differently - from swords to but a ordinary knives.

I can quote my post where I'm quoting, I guess. :smalltongue::smallwink:

Anyway, 'my' Nadolski "Grunwald - chosen questions" states simply:

" Society was saturated with arms to significant degree. Particularly, cutting weapons, swords, messers or, finally, large knives were owned and carried by everyone, starting with the king, and ending with peasants traveling to marketplaces in towns"

About beginning of 15th century in Polish kingdom, obviously.

Galloglaich

2011-07-25, 08:31 AM

To echo what Spyrt said, practically every 'slice of life' type painting I know of from the Medieval period in Continental Europe depicts people carrying weapons, it seemed to be routine, at least something like a messer or a dagger.

I couldn't be certain about England though.

And as we discussed at some length, I'm sure it would raise an eyebrow to be walking around in groups with large weapons. Certainly not going to get you executed on the spot but people would be likely to ask you what you were doing.

However regarding the question which started this little series of posts back and forth, I think in the average late Medieval (14th -15th Century) town in Central Europe the type of predatory crime of the type we know in modern cities today was pretty rare. These towns were quite small for the most part by modern standards, typically in the 10,000 - 25,000 people range. Some of the largest in Flanders and Lombardy might be ten or twenty times that size, but there were only a handful of cities that big. And of course the Royal Capitols tended to be fairly large, in the 15th Century Paris had about 100,000 people and London about 50,000.

But these are still quite small by today's standards, that would qualify as a village really in some parts of the world today. In a typical Central / Northern European town of 10 or 15,000 people, you did not have large criminal populations. Everyone who lived within the town walls was a citizen or was sponsored by or a guest of a citizen, which meant they had some means of livelihood. If they were crippled or when they got too old they would be taken care of in an Alms house (basically a retirement home) by their Guild or the Church. You didn't have slums inside the town, or really anything like a criminal element, particularly the trading Cities in Burgundy, Flanders, Central and Northern Europe and in Eastern Europe. The whole town was a commune and everyone pretty much knew everyone else. If you got into serious trouble of any kind you were likely to be exiled, if you committed a felony such as murder, robbery, arson or rape you would almost certainly be executed and your sponsor, whether it was a Guild or a family or some element of the Church, would be greatly shamed.

These towns also did not have professional police. This is another common misconception. Most did not have a permanent or professional "town watch", the town watch was made up of citizens like jury duty. And it was apparently a job most people hated, legal records are full of fines and different measures taken to keep people from selling their watch, from playing cards or dice while on watch duty, from bringing prostitutes into watch towers and so on. Their main job was really to watch for fires, which was a serious threat in Medieval towns, and to keep watch on the walls for any approaching enemies. If there was a fire or enemy forces approaching they would ring the bell and alert the town militia. Normally they would patrol the town at night a few times and break up any fights or drunken behavior which might be going on. During peacetime the militia would be augmented by a handful of mercenaries, literally no more than ten or twenty men in most cases, and these guys were basically advisors, to help the town maintain up to date defenses, and to help organize the militia in times of trouble. The reason there were so few is that mercenaries were extremely expensive (often ten times the pay of a typical journeyman or sometimes more) and they really were not trusted. Mercenaries for example would not be allowed to patrol or guard the city at night.

The towns did have violence mind you, it wasn't particularly unusual actually, it was just mostly from factional disputes, and amounted to low intensity private wars ("Fedhe"). Murder, muggings, robberies, rape, this sort of thing was pretty unusual inside the town walls. Everyone living within the town was fairly privileged. Now outside in the countryside it was another matter, there were bandits, outlaws, all kinds of trouble. That's why it was normal to travel heavily armed and also often, armored. Suburbs of towns could also be a bit more sketchy because there was more people living without obvious means of support; but if there was a dangerous element forming there the town would crack down and evict the settlements.

Now all of the above applies to market towns in Central Europe. Towns with trading rights and some level of autonomy.

In Royal and provincial capitals it could be somewhat different. Ancient Rome was beset by criminal street gangs. There is considerable evidence of organized crime in London from th 16th Century, and in the Cours De Miracles (urban slums) of Paris. The Students at the Sorbonne also apparently used to get into a fair bit of mayhem. There is some evidence of an "Assassins Guild" called the Garduna in Spain which may be a direct ancestor to the organized crime syndicates we know of in Naples and Sicily today. In these large royal cities you would also sometimes have something like a royal guard to keep the peace. The whole thing was a different dynamic.

But in the Monarchies of Western Europe (England, France, Castille) there were far fewer cities, only a couple of dozen of any significance really. By comparison there were at least 4,000 towns in the Holy Roman Empire in the 15th Century, of which maybe 300 were either Free Cities, Imperial Free Cities, and / or large Market towns with membership of the Hanseatic League with populations in the 10,000+ range.

G.

Eldan

2011-07-25, 08:54 AM

On crime and violence: apparently in central Switzerland, throughout the middle ages (and, if you believe some people, almost into modern times), it was apparently semi-traditional for young men of some villages to get together in groups of a few dozen, get enormously drunk, grab whatever farming utensils they could find and go attack neighbouring villages. Mainly by beating up the corresponding youth of those villages, but there was also vandalism, petty theft, cattle theft and sometimes rape involved.

This would apparently happen every few months.

Galloglaich

2011-07-25, 08:57 AM

Yes, I was referring strictly to crime within the walls of a town. There was commonly raiding like that all over Europe between villages, and from towns to villages in the districts of other towns or the local Gentry.

But you couldn't do a drunken raid into a market town because they had walls, like this:

http://www.castles.francethisway.com/images/chateau-carcassonne.jpg

Out in the countryside though it was often mayhem.

EDIT:

Here in this illustration from a Hausbuch from 1480 you see what appears to be a mugging or a big drunken fight outside of a mine in Southern Germany,

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausbuch_(Schloss_Wolfegg)&ei=m3YtTs2rGq7CsQKe54XHCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhausbuch%2Bvon%2Bschloss%2Bwolfegg%26 hl%3Den%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D998%26prmd%3Divns

And here you see a typical cattle raid on a village

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausbuch_(Schloss_Wolfegg)&ei=m3YtTs2rGq7CsQKe54XHCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhausbuch%2Bvon%2Bschloss%2Bwolfegg%26 hl%3Den%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D998%26prmd%3Divns

G

Spiryt

2011-07-25, 09:00 AM

To echo what Spyrt said, practically every 'slice of life' type painting I know of from the Medieval period in Continental Europe depicts people carrying weapons, it seemed to be routine, at least something like a messer or a dagger.

One day, you will copy my nick right, I guess.... :smalltongue:

On crime and violence: apparently in central Switzerland, throughout the middle ages (and, if you believe some people, almost into modern times), it was apparently semi-traditional for young men of some villages to get together in groups of a few dozen, get enormously drunk, grab whatever farming utensils they could find and go attack neighbouring villages. Mainly by beating up the corresponding youth of those villages, but there was also vandalism, petty theft, cattle theft and sometimes rape involved.

This would apparently happen every few months.

http://fradimob.hu/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ustawka1.jpg

Boys will be boys, I guess. :smallwink:

Eldan

2011-07-25, 09:35 AM

Yup. Except today, we call it "football", instead of just "rioting", I guess :smalltongue:

Knaight

2011-07-25, 09:52 AM

A couple of questions:

What was typical horse armor during the crusades, for the varying groups involved on both sides? Moreover, how did it affect the capacity of the horses to operate in the heat?

I'm aware of limited armor penetration of mail by arrows, assuming a very direct hit. How was this changed firing up at or down from walls and towers? Moreover, where did double mail fit into all this? Moreover, what armor penetration could be managed by darts and javelins in the same conditions?

What kinds of mail was it feasible to penetrate with a two handed spear thrust, and to what extent is it feasible for these kinds?

What exactly are: haute cloueur, demi-clouer, botte, and botte cassee?

Galloglaich

2011-07-25, 10:13 AM

You have to narrow it down a bit. Assuming you mean the Crusades in Outremer / Holy Land, it covers 11th Century to the late 13th (then arguably continued in the islands of the Med and in the Balkans through the 17th). Armor (for people and horses) changed in this time span! Baltic Crusades lasted from the 12th until the 15th Century so it changed enormously, Hussite Crusades were 15th Century, Albigensien Crusades were 13th. And of course there were Crusades associated with the Reconquista in Spain.

Very generally speaking though, in the Medieval period horses of the principle heavy cavalry fighters in the west, (Knights, Lances, and so on) tended to be armored, usually with some kind of hard protection on the head and the chest against sword cuts and lance strikes, and textile armor for the rest of the top of the horse. The legs were almost never armored. By the 15th Century you start to see much more substantial armor.

http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/armour/standard_armour/horse_armour/304.JPG
http://www.artfund.org/assets/image/artwork/enlarged/1933.jpg

Several examples have survived, though for some reason it's not widely depicted in artwork (particularly in Italy). But here is one example from the Battle of Orsha in the early 16th Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Orsha_(1514-09-08).jpg

However, of a given "lance", which typically was a unit of 4 or 5 men (sometimes more), only the principle warrior, the knight or the brother knight or konstafler or sergeant or whatever his specific social rank, would have an armored horse. The others would be mere lancers or demi-lancers, or mounted crossbowmen. These guys would have some body armor but their horses typically wouldn't, or if they did have armor it would usually only be textile armor. So these guys were more succeptible to having their horses killed, and the heavy cavarlyman needed these guys for backup.

This is why heavy cavalry was vulnerable to bows, crossbows, and early firearms in spite of the fact that their personal body armor was more or less impervious.

Armor did cause problems with heat for horses, but could be coped with (if using the right breeds) provided there was sufficient water. Without water they were in trouble regardless of armor.

Attacking the horses was one of the best ways to deal with heavy cavalry, which is why caltrops were used, pits were dug, spikes were set out and so on.

I'm aware of limited armor penetration of mail by arrows, assuming a very direct hit. How was this changed firing up at or down from walls and towers? Moreover, where did double mail fit into all this? Moreover, what armor penetration could be managed by darts and javelins in the same conditions?

What kinds of mail was it feasible to penetrate with a two handed spear thrust, and to what extent is it feasible for these kinds?

This sort of thing has been covered before. I don't think spears, darts or javelins, or bows either, usually penetrated mail armor. Byzantine and Arab descriptions of crusaders describe several times Crusaders walking around with arrows stuck in their gambesons, completely unharmed. Lance strikes could pierce armor sometimes, very powerful bows or crossbows at point blank range, and armor piercing weapons. That is about it.

But not everyone had armor over their entire body of course.

G.

Spiryt

2011-07-25, 10:33 AM

Horse armor, especially more of full one, was generally non typical.

I believe that Galloglaich had stormed the thread with the visages of armored horses as early as 12 century before, in response for something like that.... :smalltongue: - But - still even on those sources such horsies armor were generally rare among horses without armored parts.

Capacity to operate under heat wasn't probably really main concern - price, difficulty, weight, etc. of storing, transporting and using such things was certainly worse.

It aslo depends on who you are talking about - I believe that among heavy muslim cavalry, especially in some parts of Levant.

Can't find anything more useful that this (http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=8442), quickly though.

Generally, towards the end of Crusades period something like that could probably be spotted (http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/batlle13thcen.JPG).

Earlier than that, more unlikely, probably.

How was this changed firing up at or down from walls and towers?

As far as shooting straight down the walls, I doubt that there would be much difference, maybe with very heavy arrows.

While trying to hit something further away, I guess one would certainly be helped by the height of the wall.

Knaight

2011-07-25, 10:37 AM

Galloglaich

2011-07-25, 11:25 AM

I think arrows, all missiles, have better range from up high on a wall, javelins and darts probably doublee their range or more. Probably a little better penetration but I doubt very significant. I think rocks do more damage though.

I'll also add that, since I apparently didn't make this clear, before the 14th Century I think European horse armor was usually limited to some pieces for the head and the chest (a piece on the head and a piece on the chest), textile armor, and some (pretty rare I think) mail. The Gothic armor I linked photos to is 15th Century.

Middle Eastern and Central Asian heavy cavalry had lamellar type armor like Spiryt* showed for horses going back to the 6th Century BC (Cataphract, Clibinarri)

Not going to storm the thread any further though. :)

G.

* there you satisfied?

Spiryt

2011-07-25, 11:36 AM

Heavier stones could gain quite a lot velocity from bigger walls etc. I guess.

Same with javelins and spears, probably.

Arrows not so much I would say, unless that's some high wall. :smallwink:

Fhaolan

2011-07-25, 02:23 PM

In general, what sort of breeds would have handled the heat better when armored, and what change in necessary water allowance for horses did the armor require?

Just as a note, in case it matters, modern horse breeds have very little to do with horse breeds of olden times. Very few horse breeds that exist now would be recognizable to people two hundred years ago beyond 'Well, it's a horse, right?' There are a few that haven't changed much, and they're pretty much all classed as ponies now; Icelandics, Dales, etc.

For example, the horse breed known as a Percheron, which is in modern times is one of the biggest draft breeds was in Shakespeare's time compared favourably to Arabs. That's how much they've changed. The big draft breeds simply didn't exist in that form until relatively recently.

Add that to the fact that horse breeds, like dog breeds, were a lot looser in definition back then. A 'Belgian' horse was a horse from Belgium, etc. So it gets a bit tricky at times.

Incanur

2011-07-25, 03:41 PM

Hazzardevil

2011-07-25, 03:46 PM

I have a question about axes. When killing someone with an axe, would it be hacking through the person like with a longsword or bludgeoning like a big stick?

Spiryt

2011-07-25, 04:00 PM

I have a question about axes. When killing someone with an axe, would it be hacking through the person like with a longsword or bludgeoning like a big stick?

It would be like hacking someone with an axe....

I must say that I don't get your question, and there were so many axes in the world from 3000 B.C. till today, that it's really hard to say anything with about "what's killing with it like". :smallconfused:

Karoht

2011-07-25, 04:01 PM

I have a question about axes. When killing someone with an axe, would it be hacking through the person like with a longsword or bludgeoning like a big stick?
As someone who once used a beared axe to cut the ribs off a side of beef, I'll describe it like this.

It sliced more than I expected, but sort of bashed more than I expected. It's hard to find a middle ground between cutting and breaking, but thats how an axe performed for me.
No, the beef was not frozen.

Spiryt

2011-07-25, 04:27 PM

Well:
http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=13591

---

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=13592

Still, the whole problem is that "bearded axe" is not really telling much, there were dozens of axe shapes, designs...

But in short, most battle axes trough the history were obviously cutting weapons, unlike many wood splitting tools used now and in the past.

gkathellar

2011-07-25, 04:38 PM

I have a question about axes. When killing someone with an axe, would it be hacking through the person like with a longsword or bludgeoning like a big stick?

Neither, to my knowledge. Axes don't slash and they don't bludgeon, they "push-cut" (when the blade goes straight into something rather than cutting along an arc that leads through it - you can get a feel for the difference with a kitchen knife and a potato). This is a trait they share with machetes and some Chinese dao.

Bear in mind that a combat axe is nothing like a wood-axe. It'll be optimized either for putting a lot of force into a relatively thin edge, or it'll be meant for horseback combat, where you can just stick your arm out and let the momentum do the work for you. Any smashing is mostly incidental to the energy of the axe - axes are really good at transmitting a large amount of force to a small, location.

Hazzardevil

2011-07-25, 04:38 PM

I was referring to the Battle-axe or Greataxe mostly, because they do slashing damage in dnd and the equivalant of bludgeoning in the elder scrolls.

gkathellar

2011-07-25, 04:46 PM

I was referring to the Battle-axe or Greataxe mostly, because they do slashing damage in dnd and the equivalant of bludgeoning in the elder scrolls.

Well, axes cut things, ergo slashing. Having them do bludgeoning damage is kind of silly. Because ... you know, cutting. Chop chop.

Spiryt

2011-07-25, 04:48 PM

There were probably quite a lot of axes that were capable of slicing (defined with arc etc.) with full intention of doing so and quite well comparatively. At least blade shape suggest so.

As Nadolski type III for example,

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=2871

gkathellar

2011-07-25, 04:59 PM

Some axes may slice, but I'd be willing to bet most don't, regardless of how they're swung. There can be an arc in the movement leading up to a push cut. It's ... a little difficult to explain, and I didn't do the best job of it up there.

Try to think of it in a tactile way. If you swing an axe at something, the axe-blade collides with it head on, putting the energy of the swing very directly into the target. It has to do with the fact that you hit with pretty much the entire blade of the axe, sinking it in along a direct line (even a curved one). With most swords, you have to chop with the approximate middle of the blade to accomplish a push cut.

Galloglaich

2011-07-25, 07:41 PM

As far as urban violence goes, this study (http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2007/04/german_murder_r.html) suggests the murder rate in medieval cities matched or exceeded that of contemporary U.S. cities. It's not the most reliable data, of course, but worth considering. The rates are highest in fourteenth-century Italy and Germany. I know from reading fourteen-century English coroner's rolls that folks regularly killed each other for honor and material gain. The accounts of death by staff weapon - apparently far more common at that time than by the sword - stand out as particularly gruesome.

Cool link.

I tried to explain this a couple of times upthread but I guess it was lost in the chatter. There was plenty of violence, but it was from factional disputes, not muggings and burglaries. Most German towns experienced two or three full fledged civil wars in the 14th Century*, and there were frequent assassinations, riots and smaller civil disturbances. And a fair amount of drunken mayhem.

But I don't think you'll find that there was a lot of people getting jumped for their shoes or raped for going in a bad neighborhood as we have today. It was a different world.

* in fact right about the time when that chart shows a peak in activity is when the most civil disturbances were taking place, mostly during fights between Guild and Patrician factions.

Well, axes cut things, ergo slashing. Having them do bludgeoning damage is kind of silly. Because ... you know, cutting. Chop chop.

A lot of times people distinguish between a draw cut, a slice, like what a strait razor does, and a chop like... an axe or a meat cleaver.

We know axes can chop. The question is could axes also slice. i would tend to agree with Spiryt some could, war-axes tended to be much thinner blades than wood cutting axes and quite often the edge was made of steel forge-welded onto the iron blade of the axe, so it could be made very sharp.

Quite a few axes could actually stab too, you can thrust with those pointy ends

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/19148/765412-s_bardiche_large.jpg

G.

fusilier

2011-07-26, 02:28 AM

Several examples have survived, though for some reason it's not widely depicted in artwork (particularly in Italy). But here is one example from the Battle of Orsha in the early 16th Century.

In Italy, at the beginning of the 15th century, striking at the horse was considered "bad war" (most likely because a warhorse was very valuable, and therefore worth much more if captured uninjured). However, that scruple diminished over the course of the century and horse armor became more prevalent. I think it could have been a result of more, indiscriminate, missile weapons being used, but Mallet states that it occurred as the men-at-arms became increasingly more armored.

However, of a given "lance", which typically was a unit of 4 or 5 men (sometimes more), only the principle warrior, the knight or the brother knight or konstafler or sergeant or whatever his specific social rank, would have an armored horse. The others would be mere lancers or demi-lancers, or mounted crossbowmen. These guys would have some body armor but their horses typically wouldn't, or if they did have armor it would usually only be textile armor. So these guys were more succeptible to having their horses killed, and the heavy cavarlyman needed these guys for backup.

Hmmm. Could you elaborate on the German style of Lance, as what you have described doesn't square with an Italian lance. First of all, in an Italian lance I believe there was only one "lance" -- only one person was armed with a lance. That's why it was called a "lance."

The typical size of an Italian lance was three men, and stayed that way until about 1450. Initially it consisted of two similarly equipped men-at-arms, one of which was the leader, and a page to support them. However, that style of lance had developed when the formation was primarily an infantry one. By the 15th century the lance was fundamentally a cavalry unit, and it tended to change to consist of a man-at-arms, a less well armored sergeant, and a page. The function of the two followers was basically to care for the man-at-arm's horse and arms.

There was, however, an unusual tactic that involved dismounting the lance, and using the lance (the weapon proper) as a kind of pike. In this case, a single lance would be wielded by both the men-at-arms. This was an English tactic introduced to Italian warfare by the White Company in the 14th century. References to "infantry lances" occur during the 15th century, and my assumption is that it was a three-man lance of this sort.

As the weight of armor carried by both man and horse started to increase, the number of horses increased, and thus the number of attendants in a lance increased. This increase in size was, primarily, in terms of logistical support, although references in contracts referring to "true men-at-arms" would imply that perhaps some sort of other fighting men were appearing in the lances.

Later French and Burgundian lances were larger, mixed units, containing crossbowmen and other fighting men. There was a larger Italian lance called a corazza, and, as it's appearance coincides with the presence of Angevin troops in the region, it may have been organized in a similar manner as a French style lance. But there's no direct evidence to suggest so, and it's most probable that it had the same structure as the earlier smaller lances, but with more attendants.

Mounted crossbowmen, and later hand-gun men and arquebusiers, were formed in their own companies, and not part of a lance.

Galloglaich

2011-07-26, 06:55 AM

Hmmm. Could you elaborate on the German style of Lance, as what you have described doesn't square with an Italian lance. First of all, in an Italian lance I believe there was only one "lance" -- only one person was armed with a lance. That's why it was called a "lance."

The German 'Lance' varied widely but average in the 15th Centruy seems to have been 1 principle heavy cavalryman (knight, konstafler, ritterbruden, or sergeant) in full armor on an armored horse, armed with a lance, and anywhere from one to three lancers or demi-lancers (in at least some armor but on an unarmored horse) and an unarmed valet to lead the pack horses and bring up extra lances.

In the German Baltic regions the Lance tended to be larger (5 or 6 men total) and also included usually at least one mounted crossbowman, and this was for dealing with light cavalry and mounted archers. Sometimes the knight would carry a crossbow on his saddle as well, later this was replaced by a pistol. Some German heavy cavalry dropped the lance altogether and adopted pistols or calivers as their main armament, carrying as many as six on their saddles.

My understanding is that the French lances could be even larger and included 2 or 3 unarmed attendants and 5 or 6 lancers and crossbowmen.

The guys on the unarmored horses were critical for the protection of the knight because the armored horse wasn't as fast (or couldn't continue to be fast for as long).

G.

Yora

2011-07-26, 08:41 AM

But I don't think you'll find that there was a lot of people getting jumped for their shoes or raped for going in a bad neighborhood as we have today. It was a different world.
In smaller communities, people know each other much more closely. That makes it a lot more difficult to remain undiscovered or hide. The danger of being caught would have been many times higher.

Galloglaich

2011-07-26, 10:47 AM

Yeah that is basically my point, though it's more than just the size of the community, it's also structural. Everyone is accountable to someone, everyone inside the town has some kind of means of support (otherwise they will usually be exiled) and the whole town is sort of like one big company or co-op business. Everyone has an interest in what their neighbors are doing... which I suspect could get a bit oppressive. (and we can see how it went south for example during the Calvinist administrations of some towns in the 16th - 17th centuries)

But I think this is also why they had so many festivals and parties (Carnival and so on), and why their rules generaly tended toward more laissez faire, to minimize how much people were in each others hair and to lessen the tension.

G.

Incanur

2011-07-26, 11:42 AM

There was plenty of violence, but it was from factional disputes, not muggings and burglaries. Most German towns experienced two or three full fledged civil wars in the 14th Century*, and there were frequent assassinations, riots and smaller civil disturbances.

The data in the linked supposedly excluded wars and such in order to reflect the normal civilian murder rate (whatever that means), though the distinction between types of violence wasn't (and still isn't) necessarily clear.

But I don't think you'll find that there was a lot of people getting jumped for their shoes or raped for going in a bad neighborhood as we have today. It was a different world.

What evidence do you have for this? My perception of both modern and historical circumstances differs dramatically from yours. I think you're taking media constructions of urban criminality far too seriously. How many neighborhoods like that really exist? I know folks who've been stabbed on the street or robbed at gunpoint, but it's in areas of town I go through all the time. Random violence is random and distributed. There's not some easily identifiable and spatially distinct degenerate population to avoid. That's a deeply troubling and oppressive notion.

As mentioned earlier, I know for sure that fourteenth-century English folks killed for material gain in the stereotypical manner you invoke. One case of murder via staff blow to head involved a couple of apparently impoverish people who took valuable clothing from their victim. That's only the example that stands out in my mind - I read other similar accounts. If they killed out of desperation or greed, we can safely assume nonlethal violent crimes took place.

Galloglaich

2011-07-26, 12:35 PM

The data in the linked supposedly excluded wars and such in order to reflect the normal civilian murder rate (whatever that means), though the distinction between types of violence wasn't (and still isn't) necessarily clear.

I was unable to get to the actual study itself (it was on a pay site) and don't know what it was based on except in the vague extent described in the blog. But I'm going to try to track down a copy because it looks interesting. I've seen legal records from the 14th, 15th and 16th Century from several towns in the Baltic and the Holy Roman Empire with similar data. Depending on what you mean by "and such" I would be very surprised if most of those fairly high number of murders were not part of factional disputes, particularly since they peak in the latter part of the 14th Century and the early 15th. There were many individual crimes of violence as well but these tended to be over matters of honor. Now I'm referring only to people within the primary municipalities of these towns, as I said upthread, it was very diffierent in the villages and suburbs.

What evidence do you have for this?

I have access to a variety of town records, town Chronicles, church records, executioners diaries, the records of the Teutonic Order and others which list crimes in different periods. Plus some academic studies like the one you cited, (for certain specific areas not for the whole of Europe or Germany).

My perception of both modern and historical circumstances differs dramatically from yours. I think you're taking media constructions of urban criminality far too seriously. How many neighborhoods like that really exist? I know folks who've been stabbed on the street or robbed at gunpoint, but it's in areas of town I go through all the time. Random violence is random and distributed. There's not some easily identifiable and spatially distinct degenerate population to avoid. That's a deeply troubling and oppressive notion.

Well, I guess you'lve never been to cities where I've lived - New Orleans, Los Angeles, Miami. There are most definitely places like that in all of those cities. In New Orleans, four blocks from Bourbon Street where all the tourists go is a zone where you take your life in your hands to walk through especially at night. And it's like that in many other cities throughout the US, particularly in the poorer parts of the South and the Rust Belt, and certain towns in the North East. This is even more the case in many of the citeis in Latin America. In Rio for example within minutes of the beach there are favellas where strangers will very likely be robbed or worse. The point I was making is that Medieval trading towns did not have slums like that. Royal and Provincial capitols were organized differently and sometimes did have slums, Paris and London for example both did.

As mentioned earlier, I know for sure that fourteenth-century English folks killed for material gain in the stereotypical manner you invoke. One case of murder via staff blow to head involved a couple of apparently impoverish people who took valuable clothing from their victim. That's only the example that stands out in my mind - I read other similar accounts. If they killed out of desperation or greed, we can safely assume nonlethal violent crimes took place.

I don't know much of anything about England, but in the HRE such crimes were rare within the towns. Burghers were a priveleged class and they didn't need to steal anyones clothes. In the countryside that kind of thing was commonplace... in fact full scale raiding was routine.

G.

gkathellar

2011-07-26, 12:35 PM

But I don't think you'll find that there was a lot of people getting jumped for their shoes or raped for going in a bad neighborhood as we have today. It was a different world.

As notions of urban life goes, that one rings pretty false in both directions. There has always been crime due to economic disparity, simple ill-intentions, or circumstance. That hasn't changed and it very likely won't change. Smaller, tight-knit communities change the nature of crime and response to crime, but not its presence or absence.

Honestly, the situation you're describing with guilds, universal armament, assassination and everyone being answerable to a master just sounds like cities were effectively run by crime syndicates. The lack of criminality seems more like the result of everyone being a criminal than of actual good intentions or community. Bear in mind that through the 1920s-30s, mob-run neighborhoods were among the very safest to live in.

In smaller communities, people know each other much more closely. That makes it a lot more difficult to remain undiscovered or hide. The danger of being caught would have been many times higher.

It also makes scapegoating, hearsay, and the blindness of the community much more powerful. And if people are as factionalized as Galloglaich seems to imply ...

wayfare

2011-07-26, 12:47 PM

Hey all, got a question for the wise and might weapon folks:

I'm writing a medieval fantasy type story where onne of the main characters is a standard bearer. I was wondering what kind of weapon he could use in battle? I've considered a standard mounted on a spear, but also kind of imagine him running around holding his standard up and swinging with another weapon. Is this possible, ore purely in the ream of fantasy :smallbiggrin:

Thanks in advance

--wayfare

Galloglaich

2011-07-26, 12:51 PM

As notions of urban life goes, that one rings pretty false in both directions. There has always been crime due to economic disparity, simple ill-intentions, or circumstance. That hasn't changed and it very likely won't change. Smaller, tight-knit communities change the nature of crime and response to crime, but not its presence or absence.

I disagree... compare Switzerland today to the US. Or the city of Austin Texas to say, Flint Michigan today. It's night and day. I think economic status, social organization, and culture have a major impact on the amount of crime especially violent crime then as now.

But they weren't better people back then, they just set up the towns so that they didn't really have much of a criminal element in them, people who were antisocial got exiled.

Honestly, the situation you're describing with guilds, universal armament, assassination and everyone being answerable to a master just sounds like cities were effectively run by crime syndicates. The lack of criminality seems more like the result of everyone being a criminal than of actual good intentions or community. Bear in mind that through the 1920s-30s, mob-run neighborhoods were among the very safest to live in.

hahahaha well that's an interesting take on it. I'm sure to some people that is exactly what they were - the Prince- Bishops who usually owned these towns in the 11th and 12th Centuries and were evicted from them certainly viewed the populace as criminals. The factions within the towns could definitely be violent, and most of the cities went through a period of civil wars and civic disturbances during the second half of the 14th Century (especially after the onset of the Black Death) but this was limited in it's scope and typically settled down into compromise by the 15th, which is why those towns prospered so well and why so many of them are famous today.

Those towns which couldn't come to some kind of power sharing agreement between the Guilds and the Merchant families ended up taken over by the regional Princes, as did happenon a couple of famous occasions such as at Mainz in 1461 when the Archbishop took over, killed the city council and banished most of the citizenry (including Johannes Gutenberg who moved to Strassbourg where he went on to found his second printing press).

As to whether they were amoral or not, again, it depends on your perspective. I don't think the Guilds were like the Mafia for a variety of reasons. First and foremost the Mafia never built anything, they just take and take, they are parasites. Even the medieval Feudal Lords who ran a sort of similar protection racket knew not to kill the goose that lays the Golden Egg, the Mob knows no such restraint, in my opinion. That's why mob towns to this day tend to be run-down shells, like Naples Italy or Atlantic City NJ. ;) But on the other hand you could probably see some element of the Mobster in almost any faction during the Middle Ages. Read Macchiavelli.

On a more serious note, my understanding of these towns is that they were indeed kind of in a gray area morally. They were ruthless trade competitors in the Hanseatic League, the towns themselves tended to repress the peasantry more or less the same way as the Aristocracy did, and for the same trade-off (protection in exchange for payment or free work). But the towns were the place where the middle class existed, where almost all of the art and the music and literature we associate with Western Culture (and 'the Renaissance') came from. It's where there was the most freedom in Medieval Europe, by a long stretch. They used to have a saying in the Middle Ages that "The Town Air Makes you Free" which was a reference to the law that a serf living in the town for a year and a day was made free. But it also had a broader meaning, the town air did make you free. The origins of what we think of today as democracy came out of those towns to a large extent.

It also makes scapegoating, hearsay, and the blindness of the community much more powerful. And if people are as factionalized as Galloglaich seems to imply ...

That did indeed become a problem in certain periods and in certain towns, as I mentioned upthread. It's a tradeoff. The opposite was also true, sometimes certain towns were very nice places to live culturally and on a concrete level. In terms of beauty and aesthetics most European towns from this era are hard to surpass. But yes sometimes there were serious problems, there was a potential downside to this type of setup, I'm not sure if it's better or worse than being subject to the whims of a heredetary aristocracy? Probably neither really, it's just different. And it's our history, we can't change it now, so theres not much reason to get mad about it. :)

G.

Incanur

2011-07-26, 12:54 PM

Well, I guess you'lve never been to cities where I've lived - New Orleans, Los Angeles, Miami.

I've wandered around various parts of LA at night without any trouble. I stayed in a supposedly bad neighborhood in San Antonio with only one incident of threatened violence (a misunderstanding). The place I live - Albuquerque - has a reputation for crime. The cops justify their numerous shootings with the narrative of exceptional criminality here. A friend of my recently got robbed at gunpoint in the morning at location I've walked and biked at night countless times. Popular stories about safety and danger don't necessarily reflect lived experience. Strangers aren't the largest threat out there for most of us. So much violence comes through personal relationships.

I don't know much of anything about England, but in the HRE such crimes were rare within the towns.

You can read the London coroners rolls here (http://www.archive.org/details/calendarofcorone00shariala).

Galloglaich

2011-07-26, 01:02 PM

I've wandered around various parts of LA at night without any trouble. I stayed in a supposedly bad neighborhood in San Antonio with only one incident of threatened violence (a misunderstanding). The place I live - Albuquerque - has a reputation for crime. The cops justify their numerous shootings with the narrative of exceptional criminality here. A friend of my recently got robbed at gunpoint in the morning at location I've walked and biked at night countless times. Popular stories about safety and danger don't necessarily reflect lived experience. Strangers aren't the largest threat out there for most of us. So much violence comes through personal relationships.

Well, it's simply a statistical fact that there are very high crime areas, and very low crime areas. They keep records for this, it's not subjective. Just as in Flint Michigan has a much higher murder rate than Austin Texas. And I'm sorry but there are parts of Los Angeles that the average person is unsafe walking through, as I suspect you are aware. Just as there are "various parts" of LA where you'll almost never have any trouble - it's a big city.

G

Karoht

2011-07-26, 01:05 PM

Hokay, crime demographics vary from place to place, as do anecdotes of both crime and law enforcement officials. There are numerous causes why this is so. Economics, education, and culture, are just 3 factors which play a role.

I think if we want to discuss crime, this discussion is going to go a lot of other interesting places. Just saying.

gkathellar

2011-07-26, 01:08 PM

I'm writing a medieval fantasy type story where onne of the main characters is a standard bearer. I was wondering what kind of weapon he could use in battle? I've considered a standard mounted on a spear, but also kind of imagine him running around holding his standard up and swinging with another weapon.

That depends. You know Tokugawa Ieyasu? His standard-bearer, Hattori Hanzo, was a ninja. (Note: the first of many groups to be identified as "ninja" were just samurai with espionage training.)

So ... fighting standard bearers are not unheard of. Often, a standard bearer would not carry the flag in their hands, and instead have it tied to their back or to a horse. That way, they could have their hands free to protect the flag (and the general, in some cases).

On the other hand, a standard bearer might have also had their own honor guard. This really varies tremendously by armament, armor, horse availability, tactics, and the customs of war.

I disagree... compare Switzerland today to the US. Or the city of Austin Texas to say, Flint Michigan today. It's night and day. I think economic status, social organization, and culture have a major impact on the amount of crime especially violent crime then as now.

Didn't mean to imply that crime doesn't vary — it's just that you seemed to be suggesting that crime didn't happen then for the reasons it happens now. It did.

Galloglaich

2011-07-26, 01:21 PM

You can read the London coroners rolls here (http://www.archive.org/details/calendarofcorone00shariala).

Here is a pretty detailed study of violence in a small market town in Bavaria in the 15th - 16th Century. Keep in mind though this is a very small (500 people) territorial town not a big Free City. But it gives you a little window into this world.

http://www2.iisg.nl/esshc/programme.asp?selyear=9&pap=6190

G.

fusilier

2011-07-26, 04:20 PM

. . .

The guys on the unarmored horses were critical for the protection of the knight because the armored horse wasn't as fast (or couldn't continue to be fast for as long).

Thanks. Italian cavalry lances were always specialized heavy cavalry, they never seem to have adopted an all-round fighting force like the French, or something like German Baltic lances. Infantry was provided by militias and mercenary infantry companies, the captains of which became very respected and valued in their own right, even if the cavalry was considered more prestigious. Light cavalry was similarly formed in their own units. Thus an Italian army of the 15th century had all these components (and artillery) separated into specialized units, rather than combined into lance sized all-round fighting forces.

Incanur

2011-07-26, 07:40 PM

Well, it's simply a statistical fact that there are very high crime areas, and very low crime areas.

We're usually still talking about rather low numbers, though. Wandering through a "bad neighborhood" for a few hours might be less dangerous than living in a "safe part of town" for a year. Obsessing about deadly slums has implications beyond a rational risk analysis - most of them pernicious. And, when it comes to murder, you're many times more likely to die at the hands of somebody you know.

A study I read on murder fourteenth-century Oxford supports the picture that violence in medieval towns focused more on honor and status than directly taking material goods. (This led to tons of killing and murder rate much higher than any contemporary U.S. city.) Perhaps London was something of an exception in that regard.

Galloglaich

2011-07-26, 10:35 PM

We're usually still talking about rather low numbers, though. Wandering through a "bad neighborhood" for a few hours might be less dangerous than living in a "safe part of town" for a year. Obsessing about deadly slums has implications beyond a rational risk analysis - most of them pernicious. And, when it comes to murder, you're many times more likely to die at the hands of somebody you know.

I'm sorry, but this is patently ridiculous. There are streets not a mile from where I'm sitting right now as I type this that I can say with near certainty without having ever met you that you will get robbed in tonight if you walked through them, and probably killed like this DEA agent was (http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/beaten_dea_agent_has_died_from.html) when he took a wrong turn. You may have a political problem with the idea of dangerous slums, but they do exist, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. I'm not obsessing on anything, I lived in these places.

I'm perfectly aware that there are many suburban and urban zones in the US which have a very low incidence of crime, I lived in Austin for a year and in San Francisco and they were both very safe cities. So are large parts of LA and Orange County. But there are also very dangerous parts of LA, and that is just a fact.

A study I read on murder fourteenth-century Oxford supports the picture that violence in medieval towns focused more on honor and status than directly taking material goods. (This led to tons of killing and murder rate much higher than any contemporary U.S. city.) Perhaps London was something of an exception in that regard.

As I mentioned two or three times upthread, London was a Royal Capitol so it had a different political structure and demographic than the typical independent market town and a bit more crime. But yes (as I also pointed out) most violence in Medieval towns was to do with honor, factions, and politics.

However in places like London or Paris you would also have regular property crime and predatory crime. There was an organized criminal subculture in London which is documented by 1550, and probably existed for at least 100 years before that.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-07-26, 10:46 PM

Thanks. Italian cavalry lances were always specialized heavy cavalry, they never seem to have adopted an all-round fighting force like the French, or something like German Baltic lances. Infantry was provided by militias and mercenary infantry companies, the captains of which became very respected and valued in their own right, even if the cavalry was considered more prestigious. Light cavalry was similarly formed in their own units. Thus an Italian army of the 15th century had all these components (and artillery) separated into specialized units, rather than combined into lance sized all-round fighting forces.

Yeah but I think even in Italy the heavy cavalry had what you might call 'medium' cavalry (armored lancers on unarmored horses) and light cavalry mixed in. Maybe not as much, but it was basically universal to have some, otherwise heavy cavalry was too vulnerable.

In the HRE and the Baltic infantry Captains were also well respected and fought on both sides of the major wars in the region. The Poles, Hungarians, Swedes, Danes and Germans all used mostly Bohemian infantry, but also Scottish, Saxon, Swabian, Frisian, Dutch, Swedish, and Austrian mercenaries as well. The commanders were extremely well paid, in some cases they were given whole cities as payment, and they seemed to have the status of mid level aristocrats. Quite a few of them were knights and / or members of the gentry from the beginning though of course.

The famous "Black Army" in Hungary, considered by many military historians to be the first truly professional army in Europe since the Roman Empire, was largely based on infantry and several of the (mercenary) infantry Captains later became regional Princes in Hungary and surrounding regions.

G.

Mike_G

2011-07-26, 11:04 PM

I'm sorry, but this is patently ridiculous. There are streets not a mile from where I'm sitting right now as I type this that I can say with near certainty without having ever met you that you will get robbed in tonight if you walked through them, and probably killed like this DEA agent was (http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/beaten_dea_agent_has_died_from.html) when he took a wrong turn. You may have a political problem with the idea of dangerous slums, but they do exist, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. I'm not obsessing on anything, I lived in these places.

I'm perfectly aware that there are many suburban and urban zones in the US which have a very low incidence of crime, I lived in Austin for a year and in San Francisco and they were both very safe cities. So are large parts of LA and Orange County. But there are also very dangerous parts of LA, and that is just a fact.

G.

I more or less agree, but I want to add that there are many neighborhoods which are dangerous to outsiders. The danger of random violence from living there is less than it's often made out to be.

I've jockeyed ambulances in some very high crime areas, well known for drug and gang activity, and felt pretty safe, since I belonged there. I spoke the language, knew the signs, knew the players. I was "ok." A guy whose car broke down might get a different reception.

Most of the actual violence was committed by rivals or known associates who did target and go after people they knew and wanted to harm, rather than random strangers.

I have been mugged when my car broke down in a bad section of a city I wasn't well versed in. I was the wrong shade in the wrong place. That's all it took.

Galloglaich

2011-07-27, 08:36 AM

Yeah agreed on all counts, though how safe it is for locals depends on how 'stable' the situation is.

G.

gkathellar

2011-07-27, 08:57 AM

Okay, great, now that we're finished talking about crime rates in the United States (http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/4/thread_direction.gif), who has a question about stabbing/slicing/smashing stuff? Or avoiding the same? Or military tactics?

Anyone?

Incanur

2011-07-27, 11:16 AM

There are streets not a mile from where I'm sitting right now as I type this that I can say with near certainty without having ever met you that you will get robbed in tonight if you walked through them, and probably killed like this DEA agent was (http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/beaten_dea_agent_has_died_from.html) when he took a wrong turn.

People - including police officers - have told me the same thing about parts of Albuquerque that I've wandered around in at night without any trouble. As a side note, slums aren't necessary dangerous. Many poor colonias in Mexico City, for example, have or at least had quite low rates of violence.

Okay, great, now that we're finished talking about crime rates in the United States (http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/4/thread_direction.gif), who has a question about stabbing/slicing/smashing stuff?

With insults flying, the argument has become a matter of honor now. In medieval or Renaissance European culture, Galloglaich and I would be drawing blades at this point. :smallamused:

Yora

2011-07-27, 12:01 PM

I challenge that claim, and you to a pistol duel. :smallbiggrin:

People - including police officers - have told me the same thing about parts of Albuquerque that I've wandered around in at night without any trouble. As a side note, slums aren't necessary dangerous. Many poor colonias in Mexico City, for example, have or at least had quite low rates of violence.
Last winter a friend of mine got stranded in the bad neighborhood of Osaka, because taxi drivers refuse to enter the area. To him, it seemed like the people just want to believe that as a proper million inhabitant city, they ought to have a dangerous neighborhood. But it was one of the most peaceful cities at night he'd ever seen.

Galloglaich

2011-07-27, 01:13 PM

I challenge that claim, and you to a pistol duel. :smallbiggrin:

Last winter a friend of mine got stranded in the bad neighborhood of Osaka, because taxi drivers refuse to enter the area. To him, it seemed like the people just want to believe that as a proper million inhabitant city, they ought to have a dangerous neighborhood. But it was one of the most peaceful cities at night he'd ever seen.

Thats how I felt in the supposedly bad neighborhoods in San Fransisco (including the housing projects). But Oakland right across the Bay was another story..

People - including police officers - have told me the same thing about parts of Albuquerque that I've wandered around in at night without any trouble. As a side note, slums aren't necessary dangerous. Many poor colonias in Mexico City, for example, have or at least had quite low rates of violence.

I never said poor neighborhood = bad or dangerous neighborhood, that is your inference. But there are neighborhoods in Mexico city, in Rio, in thousands of big cities around the world, where outsiders will get in trouble as quickly as they can here in New Orleans. And I'm sure you know that.

In fact quite a few cities in Mexico which were poor but not particularly dangerous ten or fifteen years ago have become remarkably dangerous recently.

With insults flying, the argument has become a matter of honor now. In medieval or Renaissance European culture, Galloglaich and I would be drawing blades at this point. :smallamused:

Well, I train fencing a couple of times a week for the last ten years... I'm ready for that bruh. ;)

EDIT: Anyway to get back to the thread-relevant original point, I'll sum up my position like this:

Until very recently, almost everyone in the RPG, Computer Game, and fantasy world (as fans or content producers / writers) thought that people in the Middle Ages fought with crude crowbar like swords that weighed ten pounds and they just hacked and randomly slashed at each other like somebody cutting brush with a machete. Now thanks to the Fechtbucher and the HEMA revival we know that they they actually had sophisticated Martial Arts just like they did in places like Japan.

Partly as a result of those same old books, the world they lived in has become a bit more clear to us as well. We know that the people who wrote the books were part of a mostly urban, middle class phenomenon, and we can see a little window into that society from the books and the illustrations which go with them. Using forensics, archeology, analysis of the weapons and armor which survived to this day, and the records left from Medieval Europe (which for some towns are surprisingly complete going back five or six centuries) a picture of what the world in the towns was like is starting to gradually emerge.

As I've said before... it's a weird world. It's very different from the world we know today in many respects, while familiar in others. It's almost completely different from the quasi-medieval world portrayed in fantasy literature and almost all fantasy or historical role playing games, and much more complicated. More like George R.R. Martin than Chronicles of Narnia, say. Maybe it's too strange and complicated to be useful for gamers. I find it interesting.

But what we have at this point is only a partial picture, and I think it's a mistake to impose modern political disputes on it. For us to infer too much about the relative merits of life now vs. the 14th or 15th Century would be a big mistake - I don't want to go there.

We have some data, we can see that they did have different crime patterns in some recognizable statistically significant ways, we know from records that they had different politics than we see in most parts of the world today. We have forensics, artwork, literature, and of course the fechtbucher. We can get a glimpse through these means of this strange world 5 centuries ago. Whatever I've been able to figure out about it I'm glad to share here. But it's only a fragment.

Beyond that, drawing broad social conclusions is "above my pay grade". Any comparison I make to the modern world is only intended as a point of reference, I'm not trying to say anything controversial. (I didn't think the idea that dangerous urban neighborhoods do exist in the modern world was controversial)

G.

Galloglaich

2011-07-28, 09:50 AM

Karoht

2011-07-28, 09:57 AM

Did anyone see the recent episode of "Most Dangerous Warriors" featuring Joan of Arc vs. William the Conquerer? There was the usual combination of tragicomic, ridiiculous, and interesting results. They seem to have changed the format of the show a little.

G.
I got a guy who Tivo'd it. I'll be checking it out soon. Or should I even bother? Any good points raised at all? Is it just terribad?

A full review/critique of the episode from someone who's watched it would be awesome.

Galloglaich

2011-07-28, 10:37 AM

I saw it.... it's the usual mix of good bad and ridiculous. They had the girl in the Joan of Arc armor doing some half-swording which was cool. The test-shooting and test cutting was as usual pretty fun, other things were just ridiculous or silly. They used butted mail armor again (for William) and never mentioned Williams cavalry innovations. The conversations remained silly, neither of the principle protagonists could even strike properly with a sword, though the man did much better, the woman was just really weak.

It's worth watching if you've liked these before, just to watch them shoot, cut and break stuff mainly. In terms of science and history though of course it's close to useless. I still had a few laughs as I usually do with these things.

Also they got rid of that really annoying computer programmer guy.

Hey on another completely different note, but possibly related in certain ways to that whole crime in the middle ages issue, this is a really neat article:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/hideouts-sacred-spaces-experts-baffled-mysterious-underground-chambers/story?id=14136379

G.

Incanur

2011-07-28, 11:33 AM

Well, I train fencing a couple of times a week for the last ten years... I'm ready for that bruh. ;)

I used to spar weekly in George Silver's style, but it's been a while since I've had a partner. I'm glad I'm not deep into that culture of honor - I'd have to fight whenever folks on the street yell homophobic slurs at me for wearing a skirt and generally being flaming/androgynous/fabulous. One of the cases in the London coroner's rolls involved a murder via staff weapon because of an argument about a splash at a urinal. :smallconfused: That's killing for a seriously trivial matter. (I'm also amused that folks apparently pissed while holding polearms.)

Needless to say, the same thing can happen in the present day and certainly not everyone turned quarrels into violence in medieval and Renaissance times. Historical martial artists such as Silver and Joseph Swetnam recommended caution and prudence.

As I've said before... it's a weird world. It's very different from the world we know today in many respects, while familiar in others. It's almost completely different from the quasi-medieval world portrayed in fantasy literature and almost all fantasy or historical role playing games, and much more complicated. More like George R.R. Martin than Chronicles of Narnia, say. Maybe it's too strange and complicated to be useful for gamers. I find it interesting.

This strikes me as overstatement. The fantasy stereotypes aren't that impossibly far from history. A lot of fiction doesn't resemble a fifteenth-century German town because it's inspired an entirely different place and period. Tolkien, for example, drew from Norse myths to fashion Middle-earth.

Galloglaich

2011-07-28, 01:38 PM

Needless to say, the same thing can happen in the present day

Needless to say. But times were different. You can't settle a lawsuit with a sword fight today. Nobody suggests this type of Tort reform these days that I know of.

This strikes me as overstatement. The fantasy stereotypes aren't that impossibly far from history. A lot of fiction doesn't resemble a fifteenth-century German town because it's inspired an entirely different place and period. Tolkien, for example, drew from Norse myths to fashion Middle-earth.

My personal opinion is that they are really very far away.

Tolkein was one of the 'first generation' of fantasy writers and among the most scholarly, as I'm sure you know he was a University trained professional linguist and his mythology was borrowed directly from Finnish, Scandinavian and Welsh stories. If you substitute Burgundians for Elves and Huns for Orcs and take it from an X rating to a G rating Volsunga Saga would fit pretty well into Tolkeins world. He even borrowed his names (including his most famous characters Gandalf the white (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf_Alfgeirsson) (and see also here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf_(Norse_mythology)) and Frodo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frodi)) directly from Norse history.

From this basis, his world has a reasonable approximation of a mythological version of the migration era (5th - 9th Century) historical world. He was unusual in that sense compared to the genre as we know it today.

Most of the Fantasy writers from the latter part of the 20th and early 21st Century are derivitive of the first generation guys (or each other) without really any foundation in anything historical, and basically all of the Fantasy genre computer games, Sci Fi channel shows, films, and fantasy RPG games are part of their own Ren Faire / Capitol One Barbarian world which is about as far from history as you can get. (There are a rare few exceptions of course).

Among the most common erroneous cliches: Plate armor in Dark Ages or early Medieval settings, two handed swords in dark-ages settings, shields as thick as manhole covers or picnic tables, people fighting over and over without armor (in almost no clothes, usually) without getting hurt, ten and twenty pound swords, metal armor that can be cut through, Inquisitions and witch-hunts in early Medieval settings, people who never bathe (and often covered in dirt on most films and TV shows), nobody can read. Common people using hundreds of wax candles to light up areas just for the heck of it. People walking around everywhere with gems the size of golf balls stuck on their weapons and worn in their clothes. Cities are always prrimitive, muddy, and infested with plague. But they always have elaborate sewer systems you can walk around in. Little or no representation of the Church in an even remotely realistic manner (usually limited to just an evil inquisitor or a jolly friar tuck type). Every place has a King, (and usually a Chief villain out to destroy the kingdom). In the films and TV shows armies seem come in groups of ten or twenty, or a couple of hundred at the most. Villagers and peasants are almost always unarmed and settlements are almost never protected by walls beyond maybe a really crude wooden stockade made by the craft shop.

Most fantasy genres have no sense of anything like a real economy, people pay for dinner with gold coins, there are sort of supermarkets or wal-marts where you can buy anything you want for a fair price. Travel is ridiculous, horses can gallop for days on end, nobody ever seems to use boats. Peasants all wear earth tones, speak in Ren Faire faux Shakespearian dialects and listen to bad flute music while whittling thick, square wheels for their ox-cart. People have fruit and vegetables in the winter. Women wear leather or chainmail bikinis. Trebuchets fling bathtubs of napalm over the moon as the flaming arrows streak across the night sky. Medicine consists of cauterizing wounds with torches or hot iron. Bad guys wear identical uniforms of armor which can easily be cut through by a gentle draw-cut across the stomach. And so on.

A lot of people are very comfortable with and enjoy all these cliches, which is fine, they have a certain nostalgic value... I'm just pointing out the historical record is very different from all this.

G.

Spiryt

2011-07-28, 01:51 PM

This strikes me as overstatement. The fantasy stereotypes aren't that impossibly far from history.

This..... Really depends what fantasy we are thinking about, but a lot of it is yes, that far removed not only from history but from reality in general.

Many of the stuff Galloglaich described happens in setting with more "verisimilitude" like Song of Ice and Fire, while most of the stuff is even more wonky.

See also:

http://nintendookie.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/robin-hood.jpg

I think that was this 2006 Robin Hood in which Sheriff henchmen were wearing something... Well something - I offer Internet cookie for anyone who can tell me what was that supposed to be. Can't find the pic unfortunately. :smallwink:

Knaight

2011-07-28, 02:01 PM

Many of the stuff Galloglaich described happens in setting with more "verisimilitude" like Song of Ice and Fire, while most of the stuff is even more wonky.

All of that could happen in a setting with verisimilitude aplenty. Its realism it doesn't get along with.

Galloglaich

2011-07-28, 02:04 PM

All of that could happen in a setting with verisimilitude aplenty. Its realism it doesn't get along with.

Could you clarify that a little? I couldn't really parse that sentance.

G.

Knaight

2011-07-28, 02:12 PM

Could you clarify that a little? I couldn't really parse that sentance.

G.

The point by point:
1) Verisimilitude is largely about believable internal consistency.
2) Special people (read: cinematic heroes) hacking through armor and wielding gigantic weapons doesn't inherently break believable internal consistency. If they then had issues pushing a plow or something because of raw force exertion there are problems, but there is nothing innate to over sized weaponry, ridiculous leaps, or cleaving through plate armor that breaks the internal consistency of a setting.
3) It does however prevent there from being any degree of realism in that regard.
4) Ergo, settings with verisimilitude can have the traits you described. Realistic settings meanwhile really can't.

Spiryt

2011-07-28, 02:18 PM

Well, for first grab, people who never bathe and look like on the picture I provided is not very consistent. :smallwink:

Not that they should look like bums, but just not like modern "conditioner, tonic, peeling" smoothed out actors.

a_humble_lich

2011-07-28, 02:19 PM

But a lot of that is just Hollywood in general. Are fantasy movies really less realistic than the Captain America movie. Or look at movies that are based on true stories where many of the original participants are still alive. I made the mistake of going to see Perl Harbor with a man who worked there during the attack. He was not amused. The difference is for some reason we know that modern movies aren't realistic, yet people can't see the same lack of realism in fantasy movies.

Galloglaich

2011-07-28, 02:41 PM

The point by point:
1) Verisimilitude is largely about believable internal consistency.
2) Special people (read: cinematic heroes) hacking through armor and wielding gigantic weapons doesn't inherently break believable internal consistency. If they then had issues pushing a plow or something because of raw force exertion there are problems, but there is nothing innate to over sized weaponry, ridiculous leaps, or cleaving through plate armor that breaks the internal consistency of a setting.
3) It does however prevent there from being any degree of realism in that regard.
4) Ergo, settings with verisimilitude can have the traits you described. Realistic settings meanwhile really can't.

Ok point taken, and yes I understand what you mean I think. Buggs bunny has some verisimilitude, internal consistency or whatever you want to call it, within it's own context. I don't frankly usually get this feeling from most fantasy genre films and games but that of course is subjective. And it's not the point I'm making.

All I was saying is that the real Medieval world is much different and more complex and nuanced than the fantasy trope. I agree with you that verisimilitude is a very different issue.

But a lot of that is just Hollywood in general. Are fantasy movies really less realistic than the Captain America movie. Or look at movies that are based on true stories where many of the original participants are still alive. I made the mistake of going to see Perl Harbor with a man who worked there during the attack. He was not amused. The difference is for some reason we know that modern movies aren't realistic, yet people can't see the same lack of realism in fantasy movies.

Yes I think fantasy movies, computer games, RPGs, tv shows and so on are FAR LESS realistic than for almost any other genre. It's the same for historical films, games etc. set in Medieval Europe for the most part.

I've seen quite a few very realistic cowboy films, mafia films, Roman films, civil war films, World War II films (not Pearl Harbor though obviously), World War I films, films set in the 18th Century American colonies, pirate films, Napoleonic era films, and even science fiction films (well that is awlays deatable but say, Outland, the original Alien, and Blade Runner all struck me as very realistic) but I can count the number of realistic Medieval historical or quasi Medieval fantasy films or RPG games on one hand.

The Name of the Rose. Flesh and Blood. The Last Valley. The various Kirosawa Samurai films. A few Polish films set in the 17th Century. That's about it. And none of those every really included city life in any respect, in spite of the importance of cities in Medieval Europe.

G

gkathellar

2011-07-28, 02:49 PM

computer games, RPGs

To be fair, a truly unsettling number of commoners in Dragon Age can and will try to cut your head off if they can find a halfway decent reason for it. In fact, you can typically assume that if someone isn't trying to cut your head off, it's probably because they just saw you mutilate someone who already made the attempt.

Knaight

2011-07-28, 02:51 PM

Ok point taken, and yes I understand what you mean I think. Buggs bunny has some verisimilitude, internal consistency or whatever you want to call it, within it's own context. I don't frankly usually get this feeling from most fantasy genre films and games but that of course is subjective. And it's not the point I'm making.

All I was saying is that the real Medieval world is much different and more complex and nuanced than the fantasy trope. I agree with you that verisimilitude is a very different issue.
I agree entirely on both points. Much of the fantasy genre consists of very flat, very boring settings that are a vehicle for very flat, very boring characters. Moreover, even the more interesting settings with more interesting characters tend to be eclipsed by reality, though this applies to most fiction. A lot of it is that fantasy is disproportionately used for escapism relative to other genres, and thus simplicity becomes a virtue under those conditions.

Yes I think fantasy movies, computer games, RPGs, tv shows and so on are FAR LESS realistic than for almost any other genre. It's the same for historical films, games etc. set in Medieval Europe for the most part.

I've seen quite a few very realistic cowboy films, mafia films, Roman films, civil war films, World War II films (not Pearl Harbor though obviously), World War I films, films set in the 18th Century American colonies, pirate films, Napoleonic era films, and even science fiction films (well that is awlays deatable but say, Outland, the original Alien, and Blade Runner all struck me as very realistic) but I can count the number of realistic Medieval historical or quasi Medieval fantasy films or RPG games on one hand.

The Name of the Rose. Flesh and Blood. The Last Valley. The various Kirosawa Samurai films. A few Polish films set in the 17th Century. That's about it.

G

Agreed entirely on this point. We see far too little realism in the genre. That said, part of this is probably due to personal expertise. If someone were to make a film about pretty much any extreme sport, they could slip a huge amount of BS under my nose. While I'm not intimately familiar with medieval european history, I'm much more familiar with it than, say, snowboarding. If someone pulls the "wields a weapon most can't even lift" stunt as a way to show a character is impressive, I notice. Something that egregious in snowboarding? I probably won't catch it.

Now, I might be remembering incorrectly, but your field of study is largely focused on pre-modern european history, correct? As such, you notice screw ups most don't. Meanwhile, you might miss, for instance, the various parts of Alien which are highly questionable from a scientific perspective.

Galloglaich

2011-07-28, 03:18 PM

Yeah it's posisble, though I'm reasonably technically literate. I grant you that the sci fi stuff though is subjective. When it comes to WW II etc., I know enough to be able to judge whether it's in the ball park.

EDIT: I should also add, to be fair, that a really realistic portrayal of the Medieval or Renaissance world would have been very difficult to put together in the 1960's or 1970's, or even into the 1980s. Most of the more ridiculous cliches we have about this period stem from the Victorian era and were just never really challenged in the 20th Century. Oakeshott helped open the eyes of the academic community starting in the 1960's but that didn't really filter out into the general public until maybe ten or fifteen years ago with the advent of the Internet. The Medieval martial arts manuals were known only to a handful of people until the later 1990's... and a great deal of information has become available in English just in the last three or four years thanks to more links between Unversities in Central Europe and the US (and UK) and software like google translate and google books, the decision of the Vatican library to digitize a lot of their books and so on.

For me, as someone who has been interested in the Medieval world since I first read Tolkein as a kid back in the 70's, it's only just recently become somewhat accessible, and then only throuh a lot of effort. Thanks to forums like this, a lot of us are sharing what we have been able to find out. And from my perpective, it's a very strange world indeed. Exciting and interesting in many ways, off-putting in some others. But much more complex and variegated than I would have ever imagined. And strange to me perhaps partly because I grew up with all those odd cliches same as everybody else. That is what I've been trying to convey.

G.

Mike_G

2011-07-28, 03:36 PM

The Name of the Rose. Flesh and Blood. The Last Valley. The various Kirosawa Samurai films. A few Polish films set in the 17th Century. That's about it. And none of those every really included city life in any respect, in spite of the importance of cities in Medieval Europe.

G

Despite being slanted toward comeday, the 1974-ish Three Musketeers and Four Musketeers were very well done for Hollywood. Very faithful to the books, and while they got a bit slapstick at times, the historical stuff rang pretty true. The fighting was more old school rapier than modern fencing or Hollywood combat.

The need to turn Constance into a clumsy bimbo and display Raquel Welch's rack aside.

Although, as racks go, they could have done worse

Incanur

2011-07-28, 03:44 PM

My personal opinion is that they are really very far away.

I sympathize with the various complaints you list, but it's a matter of degree. Goofy sword fighting still captures the basics: people get cut and die. Stereotypical and simplified feudal relations convey a critical aspect of medieval social dynamics. Even 3.x D&D, of all things, can resonate with historically relevant themes and echo fifteenth-century Europe on occasion.

As an aside, have you played the computer role-playing game Darklands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darklands_%28video_game%29)? It set in a magical version of fifteenth-century Germany and painstakingly detailed. I learned a fair amount just from experiencing the in-game world. I find the combat mechanics troublesome and misguided at points, but they're vastly closer to Western martial arts than in any other computer game I've encountered.

He was unusual in that sense compared to the genre as we know it today.

That's a fair point. Tolkien is an exceptional fantasy writer.

people fighting over and over without armor (in almost no clothes, usually) without getting hurt

That just means they're doing it right. :smallsmile: George Silver wanted all fencing instructors to prove themselves by going multiple rounds against various different opponents without getting hit. The art of defense exists to prevent injury.

I agree entirely on both points. Much of the fantasy genre consists of very flat, very boring settings that are a vehicle for very flat, very boring characters. Moreover, even the more interesting settings with more interesting characters tend to be eclipsed by reality, though this applies to most fiction.

Yes and no. I'd love to see to more historically inspired fantasy fiction - that's what I write myself - but find little use in declaring reality superior. Why put the two in competition? Stories have a fundamentally different function from medieval fight books and scholarly monographs. None of the aforementioned sources matched lived reality in its unspeakable diversity and complexity, though they simultaneously form of a part it.

Galloglaich

2011-07-28, 03:49 PM

Despite being slanted toward comeday, the 1974-ish Three Musketeers and Four Musketeers were very well done for Hollywood. Very faithful to the books, and while they got a bit slapstick at times, the historical stuff rang pretty true. The fighting was more old school rapier than modern fencing or Hollywood combat.

The need to turn Constance into a clumsy bimbo and display Raquel Welch's rack aside.

Although, as racks go, they could have done worse

http://www.celebritiesheight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Raquel-Welch.jpg

Agreed on all counts but that is set in the 17th Century so really a bit past the Medieval period. Up until the 1960s, certainly quite a bit in the 30's and 40's (Douglas Fairbanks / Erol Flynn era) they had quite a few films set in the 17th-19th Century with pretty good fencing. But even back then the quality fell off dramatically when you go before that era. Though the 1950's film "The Vikings" will go down as having one of the best party scenes in any period film... and the whole movie is at least loosely based on Ragnars saga, and somewhat in the ballpark of plausible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjfyzGtp_gw

Though they did do the flaming arrows bit there in the beginnng of the trailer :smalleek:

As an aside, have you played the computer role-playing game Darklands? It set in a magical version of fifteenth-century Germany and painstakingly detailed. I learned a fair amount just from experiencing the in-game world. I find the combat mechanics troublesome and misguided at points, but they're vastly closer to Western martial arts than in any other computer game I've encountered.

YEs that was an excellent game, I only found out about it in fairly recent years and didn't have the patience to sit through the text interface but I did take a pretty close look at it and it was very well researched especially from the time period. I think it was from Germany right?. Definetely an exception to the rule. I wish somebody would make a modern game out of that.

G.